Who didnt vote for the Good Friday Agreement?

James Brown

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The “good republicans”.

Like Lab/FG Senator Maria Cahill?

Another question would be why of those who supported it and posed for photos talk like it never happened when asked questions about policy.

Conall Cernach

statesaver wrote: »

Republican Sinn Fein

Actually Republican Sinn Féin opposed it on the grounds that that the Irish Republic of Easter Week 1916, ratified in 1918, is inalienable and non-judicable. The GFA puts the independence and unity of Ireland entirely in the hands of the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and even then requires a border poll to be passed in each jurisdiction. Republican Sinn Féin held at the time that no new vote was required as the British had already been told to leave by the Irish people acting as a unit in 1918.

BattleCorp

I voted against it too.

I had two main reasons.

1. I didn't want to give up our constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. As far as I'm concerned, it should be part of Ireland.

2. I didn't want people who carried out atrocities on both sides released after serving fcukall time for their crimes.

Was I right or wrong to vote that way, I don't know but c'est la vie.

Bonniedog

Well you were correct about the united Ireland part.

Everyone knows it is not going to happen under GFA.

Not a chance the Brits will call a border poll, and if they do it will be beaten.

Shinners just like to pretend that this is possible as they get on with becoming another boring middle of the road partitionist party.

James Brown

Bonniedog wrote: »

Well you were correct about the united Ireland part.

Everyone knows it is not going to happen under GFA.

Not a chance the Brits will call a border poll, and if they do it will be beaten.

Shinners just like to pretend that this is possible as they get on with becoming another boring middle of the road partitionist party.

'Shinners' aren't the only people looking forward to a united Ireland. Myself and Enda Kenny for example.

Junkyard Tom

Bonniedog wrote: »

Well you were correct about the united Ireland part. Everyone knows it is not going to happen under GFA.

In essence the GFA is a flowchart that loops back to a border poll until a UI is voted in favour of.

Bonniedog

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

In essence the GFA is a flowchart that loops back to a border poll until a UI is voted in favour of.

Read the section on the poll and consent (otherwise known as the Unionist veto.)

There is no current basis for a poll never mind any chance it would be for unity.

How long do you reckon yourself?

In 1994, the IRA was told Brits would be gone by 2000. Then just before it was disbanded the date had moved to 2016. Not sure what time the snake oil salesmen put on it now.

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

Read the section on the poll and consent (otherwise known as the Unionist veto.)

There is no current basis for a poll never mind any chance it would be for unity.

How long do you reckon yourself?

In 1994, the IRA was told Brits would be gone by 2000. Then just before it was disbanded the date had moved to 2016. Not sure what time the snake oil salesmen put on it now.

The Brits are gone in spirit. It's been reeled back in slowly and inexorably.

The only basis for a poll (adjudicated on by the courts) is the 'opinion' of the SoS with no onus on him/her to back up their opinion...it can be a political decision or even based on opinion polls...doesn't matter.

Junkyard Tom

Bonniedog wrote: »

Read the section on the poll and consent (otherwise known as the Unionist veto.)

I've read the GFA a good few times and there is no Unionist veto. There would be no GFA if there was a unionist veto.

How long do you reckon yourself?

I used to think it was way off, maybe three generations, I revised that down to a second border poll that I would estimate is about 10 to 15 years away. Now? Fuck knows. A United Ireland could a be a rescue mission in a couple of years time.

Regardless this is all heading in one direction, aided by the gradual weaving together of Ireland north-south economically, socially, and psychologically.

facehugger99

I was a big supporter of it - it removed the constitutional claim and in effect, gave a de facto veto to ROI voters to any unification proposals.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I was a big supporter of it - it removed the constitutional claim and in effect, gave a de facto veto to ROI voters to any unification proposals.

I am begining to think there may be a challenge to the need for a referendum here at all.
We already constitutionally aspire to a UI. That has been decided already as recently as 1998.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am begining to think there may be a challenge to the need for a referendum here at all.
We already constitutionally aspire to a UI. That has been decided already as recently as 1998.

incorrect.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am begining to think there may be a challenge to the need for a referendum here at all.

It's an interpretation. A referendum in the south is not explicitly mentioned but a:

majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions

[Article 3. 1.]

Regardless, I say let a referendum take place to see who lines up where. The worst thing that could happen for southern partitonists is that they win because Ireland as we know it would cease to be anyway.

Bass Reeves

It was not my preferred solution. I have much preferred that we dug a drain from Lough Foyle around to Carlingford lough. When that was done ideally push the whole area up towards Iceland. However we never have managed to squeeze it beyond Scotland, they could have it if they liked.

A wall was my second preferred solution. However Israel and Trump have given walls a bad name. There has been a few good ones historically, the Great Wall of China and Hadrians Wall in the UK.

I voted for it I half sorry now

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's an interpretation. A referendum in the south is not explicitly mentioned but a:

majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions

[Article 3. 1.]

Regardless, I say let a referendum take place to see who lines up where. The worst thing that could happen for southern partitonists is that they win because Ireland as we know it would cease to be anyway.

Oh yes...looking forward to a referendum and watching who will represent partitionists politically. Then watching them try and separate themselves from belligerent unionism.

Bonniedog

The only basis for a border poll would be an election showing that a united Ireland might get a majority.

The united Ireland vote even if you count the SDLP has barely shifted in 25 years.

The notion that they the Brits will call one on the basis of an opinion poll is ludicrous,

So only hope is to outride the Prods for 20 years. Ironic that the most pro abortion party is reduced to this, even accepting that they give a fart any longer about unity,

I wouldn’t have. I was too young at the time though.

Giving them the automatic right to a passport was the line.
-

LuasSimon

More and more people in England would give the 6 counties back in the morning and would prefer if the Government spent money on jobs in Northern England or Cornwall than pumping money into security in Armagh or Tyrone that dont want to be under British rule.

Id say East Derry, County Antrim and North Down are the only clear Unionists majority parts left in the 6 counties .

RandomViewer

17000 spoiled votes in the referendum, must have been some weird crap written on them

Galwayguy35

I voted for it but the country should never have been divided in the first place, a civil war would have happened but it would have been no worse than the one that did actually happen.

100 years later I'm not sure a border poll would pass, people down here probably reckon we couldn't afford it and who wants to have to put up with loyalists.

smelly sock

An Ri rua wrote: »

Of course it did, that's a bonkers statement. Did you grow up during the Troubles?

The troubles didnt touch or affect most of the people south of the border. Thats a fact.

RandomViewer

smelly sock wrote: »

The troubles didnt touch or affect most of the people south of the border. Thats a fact.

It did, at least we had access to UK TV channels and newspapers , deep south was indoctrinated by RTE and the Independant .

mr_fegelien

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I voted for it but the country should never have been divided in the first place, a civil war would have happened but it would have been no worse than the one that did actually happen.

100 years later I'm not sure a border poll would pass, people down here probably reckon we couldn't afford it and who wants to have to put up with loyalists.

Why would we have not been able to afford it?

Galwayguy35

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Why would we have not been able to afford it?

Costs the Brits around £11 billion a year just to keep the lights on in NI.

Junkyard Tom

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Costs the Brits around £11 billion a year just to keep the lights on in NI.

That £11Bn figure is highly disputed.

martingriff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am begining to think there may be a challenge to the need for a referendum here at all.
We already constitutionally aspire to a UI. That has been decided already as recently as 1998.

I would not be 2 sure of a vote for a UI as the years progress

1998 was 22 years ago and a lot has happened

joe40

martingriff wrote: »

I would not be 2 sure of a vote for a UI as the years progress

1998 was 22 years ago and a lot has happened

I'm not even sure a majority of nationalists in the North would vote for a United Ireland. The GFA enabled people to feel Irish and removed physical border but did not involve the upheaval to the status quo of a UI.
50 euro to see a doctor can dampen some of the most ardent Republicans.

martingriff

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not even sure a majority of nationalists in the North would vote for a United Ireland. The GFA enabled people to feel Irish and removed physical border but did not involve the upheaval to the status quo of a UI.
50 euro to see a doctor can dampen some of the most ardent Republicans.

The thing I wonder is if a border poll is called and NI vote yes but Ireland vote no where does that leave them. Also if NI vote no does that put it to bed permanently and they are then all British

McMurphy

martingriff wrote: »

The thing I wonder is if a border poll is called and NI vote yes but Ireland vote no where does that leave them. Also if NI vote no does that put it to bed permanently and they are then all British

Do you envisage any of the mainstream political partys in the Dail campaigning for a no vote should a border poll come to pass?

armaghlad

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not even sure a majority of nationalists in the North would vote for a United Ireland. The GFA enabled people to feel Irish and removed physical border but did not involve the upheaval to the status quo of a UI.
50 euro to see a doctor can dampen some of the most ardent Republicans.

If paying to see the GP is the primary argument against reunification then I wouldn’t feel too disheartened about being under the rule of tory overlords for much longer.