United Ireland Poll - please vote

BonnieSituation

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I understand your stance but I don't see a flag or anthem change as appeasing Unionists (many will never be placated) but as an agreed change for a shared island. We cannot use the Tricolour in the same way as we cannot adopt the Union Jack as a flag of a united country. We are not taking over a country. It is not colonisation. We will be joining together with them.

I know that. You'll notice I used the phrase "belligerent Unionists".

BonnieSituation

VinLieger wrote: »

Because after 6 years of the Brexit omnishambles and perfidious albion attitude I don't trust Westminster under the Tories and i don't see Labour winning a majority anytime soon so if we are going to do a border poll in the near future it will likely be under a Tory Government who cannot be trusted.

That's a fair enough fear to have, but at the same time, they won't be just lobbing that grenade on us.

eire4

Seathrun66 wrote: »

When discussing Irish reunification you pointed to the failure of German reunification.
Yet you are unable to elaborate on where you believe Germany has not succeeded.

It's seemingly indicative of a partitionist's inability to follow through with any tangible argument.

No major change is without its issues and its challenges and takes time to work out. I mean look how long it took us to get out own house in order after 1922. Plus of course that is not to say we have it all sorted now and everything is honky dorry because of course it is not. To expect anything less is not facing reality when it comes to Irish reunification. But for me its time is drawing ever closer and that is a good thing as I believe the sooner Irish reunification happens the better for everyone on the island in the long term.

Seathrun66

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I know that. You'll notice I used the phrase "belligerent Unionists".

Yeah, I understand that. I just think there's no option but to change both. That offer though, won't appease some belligerents who'll throw it in our faces. Nevertheless do it we must.

FrancieBrady

eire4 wrote: »

No major change is without its issues and its challenges and takes time to work out. I mean look how long it took us to get out own house in order after 1922. Plus of course that is not to say we have it all sorted now and everything is honky dorry because of course it is not. To expect anything less is not facing reality when it comes to Irish reunification. But for me its time is drawing ever closer and that is a good thing as I believe the sooner Irish reunification happens the better for everyone on the island in the long term.

Would you agree that a lot of 'our' problems were down to an unnatural balance being created. Would the RC church have gotten the control they did with a vocal protestant representation in the Dáil?

Partition allowed what became FF and FG to more or less divide the spoils here. Took decades to sort it out and reduce their vote share from an unhealthy 86% to what it is now, just over 40%.

hometruths

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I understand your stance but I don't see a flag or anthem change as appeasing Unionists (many will never be placated) but as an agreed change for a shared island. We cannot use the Tricolour in the same way as we cannot adopt the Union Jack as a flag of a united country. We are not taking over a country. It is not colonisation. We will be joining together with them.

Why can't we use the tricolour? It already symbolises everything about a united Ireland.

Agreed we are not taking over a country, nor colonising, but nor are we joining together with 'them'.

We would be reuniting the island, and in that context the tricolor is the perfect flag.

Seathrun66

VinLieger wrote: »

Because after 6 years of the Brexit omnishambles and perfidious albion attitude I don't trust Westminster under the Tories and i don't see Labour winning a majority anytime soon so if we are going to do a border poll in the near future it will likely be under a Tory Government who cannot be trusted.

Absolutely no trust for them either but the timeframe will have to be agreed with the Dublin government and it is very unlikely to be hasty.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

I understand that but in this case the pollster asked.....

Would you be in favour or against a united Ireland if it meant ...
*you would have to pay less tax (73%)
*there would be no change in the amount of tax you pay(63%)
*You would have to pay more tax (31%)

Ridiculous to say that is a loaded question.

Of course it is a biased question; it reduces a question which may be decided by many factors to a potentially overt focus purely on one aspect of it. It forces the person answering to place more focus on taxation than it would receive when just asked, 'would you vote in favour of Unification', the increased focus inflates its impact. This is well known with regards to polling, which is why (in general) it is best practice to avoid questions with such an obvious agenda, unless your objective is to specifically investigate that agenda.

It isn't to say these questions are without merit; obviously it highlights that the economic side of things is a concern that will need answering for a significant amount of the electorate. It is just of limited value when trying to answer the question of how many people will actually vote yes/no in the event of a border poll, which is primarily the rod that it is being used as to beat those who favour Unification.

Seathrun66

schmittel wrote: »

Why can't we use the tricolour? It already symbolises everything about a united Ireland.

Agreed we are not taking over a country, nor colonising, but nor are we joining together with 'them'.

We would be reuniting the island, and in that context the tricolor is the perfect flag.

We will be joining with the North. As equals. To think otherwise nullifies much of the point of reunification.

Try explaining the retention of the Tricolour (and its loaded symbolism) to one seventh of the citizens of a new state.

eire4

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would you agree that a lot of 'our' problems were down to an unnatural balance being created. Would the RC church have gotten the control they did with a vocal protestant representation in the Dáil?

Partition allowed what became FF and FG to more or less divide the spoils here. Took decades to sort it out and reduce their vote share from an unhealthy 86% to what it is now, just over 40%.

To be fair as I mentioned before any major change is going to have its challenges and the state the country was in post 1922 both socially and economically was always going to be a major problem. But one of the issues I feel that hurt us badly then was that DeValera was the only major revolutionary period leader to survive and to say he was a far right religious zealot and conservative in general is to put it mildly and he really dominated the political landscape for so long after independence and that for me IMHO was a massive problem. There was no real alternative to him for so long and that I think held us back as a country.

hometruths

Seathrun66 wrote: »

We will be joining with the North. As equals. To think otherwise nullifies much of the point of reunification.

Try explaining the retention of the Tricolour (and its loaded symbolism) to one seventh of the citizens of a new state.

It's symbolism is literally uniting orange and green.

If 15% of the citizens of a United Ireland cannot accept that symbolism, one wonders why the remaining 85% of the citizens should accept their wishes.

Hamsterchops

tom1ie wrote: »

Maybe they are unaware they will suffer a tax increase, lose the NHS, have larger primary school classes etc etc.

Lose the NHS, the BBC, free GP visits, free Dentist visits too. They'll also need to brace themselves for massive insurance hikes - across the board.

But if they vote to leave the UK, then leave the UK they will (once and for all), and become one with us here in the ROI. That's what we want, that's what they want.

Simples.

jh79

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Of course it is a biased question; it reduces a question which may be decided by many factors to a potentially overt focus purely on one aspect of it. It forces the person answering to place more focus on taxation than it would receive when just asked, 'would you vote in favour of Unification', the increased focus inflates its impact. This is well known with regards to polling, which is why (in general) it is best practice to avoid questions with such an obvious agenda, unless your objective is to specifically investigate that agenda.

It isn't to say these questions are without merit; obviously it highlights that the economic side of things is a concern that will need answering for a significant amount of the electorate. It is just of limited value when trying to answer the question of how many people will actually vote yes/no in the event of a border poll, which is primarily the rod that it is being used as to beat those who favour Unification.

It was Q9 from a large series of questions. The agenda was to get an overview of people's mindset re unification. Other questions in the series dealt with a UI as a yes/no scenario without any caveats.

Even i would answer yes to the basic question and I'm a "partitionist"!

eire4

schmittel wrote: »

It's symbolism is literally uniting orange and green.

If 15% of the citizens of a United Ireland cannot accept that symbolism, one wonders why the remaining 85% of the citizens should accept their wishes.

There is no question whatever anybody wants to say for or against the Irish tricolour its symbolism can only be described as laudable. To say anything else regarding its symbolism is risible and or shows ignorance of what it means symbolically.

BonnieSituation

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Yeah, I understand that. I just think there's no option but to change both. That offer though, won't appease some belligerents who'll throw it in our faces. Nevertheless do it we must.

Absolutely.

But that's my point, engaging with belligerents is pointless at this juncture. They'll come around to their new realities as they've always done.

The worst thing we can do is in our (futile) attempt to bring belligerents with us, we alienate the likes of say, VinLieger and Schmittel etc.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

It was Q9 from a large series of questions. The agenda was to get an overview of people's mindset re unification. Other questions in the series dealt with a UI as a yes/no scenario without any caveats.

Even i would answer yes to the basic question and I'm a "partitionist"!

I'm aware of that, Jh; I already said that the question is not without merit (in the context of the broader series of questions). But taken in isolation outside of that purpose and presenting it as an answer with strong value on its own as a way to minimise appetite for Unification (as it generally the case when it is lobbed up on here with absolutely zero context or awareness), that I object to.

Funnily enough, to certain phrasing of the question, I would answer No, despite being a Republican (and occasionally being accused of being a Shinnerbot despite my regular criticism of them). Namely I'd answer No if asked would I vote for Unification if asked tomorrow. Absolutely not with no plan or pathway forwards.

Bobeagleburger

The tricolour doesn't survive as the national flag in a UI, no chance.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why is that do you think blanch?

Might it have something to do with the creation of an arbitary majority with an arbitary line?

Might the imposition of said arbitary line have caused nothing but division and polarisation that is incurable with the continuation of that partition?

What is it about the differences in 'the people' if the above is not the case? Are they as they are, because they are closer to the North Pole, more disposed to division, too much sun, too many soda farls, exposure to Sainsbury's?

Why are they different to the rest of the people of this island?

Arbitrary lines on arbitrary maps have been here since the dawn of human history. They haven't prevented anyone from living in harmony.

People have prevented people from living in harmony, most importantly leaders.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Arbitrary lines on arbitrary maps have been here since the dawn of human history. They haven't prevented anyone from living in harmony.

People have prevented people from living in harmony, most importantly leaders.

Please just stop this nonsense.

blanch152

eire4 wrote: »

There is no question whatever anybody wants to say for or against the Irish tricolour its symbolism can only be described as laudable. To say anything else regarding its symbolism is risible and or shows ignorance of what it means symbolically.

That was true up to a point.

The point when that changed was when SF/IRA at the time abused the symbolism and started draping it on the coffins of criminal thugs who had killed members of their own communities.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Arbitrary lines on arbitrary maps have been here since the dawn of human history. They haven't prevented anyone from living in harmony.

People have prevented people from living in harmony, most importantly leaders.

Ehhhh....you might want to do a bit more reading on your history. People have fought over arbitrary lines on maps as long as those lines have been in existence.....and before that, they fought over other arbitrary lines that weren't recorded on maps.

Haven't prevented anyone from living in harmony? What an odd take on global history.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Please just stop this nonsense.

It is a legitimate opinion, based on reasonable premises, using examples from elsewhere. It doesn't fit the Sinn Fein narrative, but it is true nonetheless.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Ehhhh....you might want to do a bit more reading on your history. People have fought over arbitrary lines on maps as long as those lines have been in existence.....and before that, they fought over other arbitrary lines that weren't recorded on maps.

Haven't prevented anyone from living in harmony? What an odd take on global history.

Yes, but plenty of arbitrary lines have caused no problems at all. What was the difference? The people involved.

The linkage of nationhood and nationality to territory as the ideology of exclusionary nationalism does is one of the most toxic forms of ideology around, second only to religion.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but plenty of arbitrary lines have caused no problems at all. What was the difference? The people involved.

The linkage of nationhood and nationality to territory as the ideology of exclusionary nationalism does is one of the most toxic forms of ideology around, second only to religion.

There aren't too many arbitrary lines on maps that haven't caused a problem at some point, Blanch.

The deep irony being that your latest line of attack runs in direct contradiction to your previous assertion that the Irish border is one of the longest abiding in world history.

At least stay consistent with yourself and your legitimate opinions....when looked at together, perhaps they're not as reasonable as you think.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a legitimate opinion, based on reasonable premises, using examples from elsewhere. It doesn't fit the Sinn Fein narrative, but it is true nonetheless.

What's SF got to do with me asking you stop repeating rubbish?

eire4

blanch152 wrote: »

That was true up to a point.

The point when that changed was when SF/IRA at the time abused the symbolism and started draping it on the coffins of criminal thugs who had killed members of their own communities.

As always your trolling is top notch all credit to you.

Inquirer

10000maniacs wrote: »

You could compare the scenario in the North after a successful United Ireland vote to Dublin and Donegal in 1921. There were lot of Unionists in Dublin and Donegal in 1921. They just shut up, went with the flow and kept a low profile when the 26 Counties gained independence. That's what will happen up the North if there is a united Ireland.
The pragmatist within them will take over and they will realise they are on a hiding to nothing if they keep on whinging and whining about their situation.

I'm going to try to reply to the multiple relies to myself over the last few days, apols I couldn't quote them all off.

As I am trying to explain, this is not about logic for the Unionists. Many here are making a lot of assumptions about their mindset and about how such a complicated scenario would play out. Something which is extremely unwise if you ask me. Is there any surveys out there which essentially asked the unionists - especially the hardcore ones - 'If there was a UI Tomorrow would you accept it quietly and not resort to violence?' I think these hard questions need to be asked first, and this is underlined by the recent violence there. This is not the protestant population in Donegal/Dublin in 1921 - the population percentages have no remote comparison.

Incidently I never said the IRB/ later IRA had no logical objectives - I said they didn’t necessarily have the full support of the population at the time, which is true. Apols for bad paragraphing.

Re their objectives - since it hasn't happened yet and is entirely hypothetical, I will not commit myself to any specific objective they could have, but I'm sure they could dream something up. Given the many, many ways this could play out, is what I'm talking about really that beyond the bounds? James, you are noting that there will be violence but it shouldn’t have much support, though your not really proving your point. But how much violence? I mean, it sounds like this is playing Russian roulette with the fate of nations and its too big a risk.


If I went and analyzed insurgencies of the past, many would have asked them when they were starting out 'What are you fighting for?' Ask the Palestinians? Or the Gazans. Or the Kosovo Albanians. The former essentially have no choice except to accept Israeli rule/occupation whatever way you want to state it. Doesn't stop them fighting, over and over, year after year.
And no, I don't know what they would be fighting for in such a scenario. Would it matter? Just because its not founded in a classical Clausewitzian sense doesn't mean they couldn't make hell on earth for us. I should point out the extreme religiosity of some of their population, and their affiliation with various creationist groups in the US. No, logic is not a big part of this, and saying 'you have no choice' to them will sure as feck not make up the difference, one only needs to have a basic grasp of Irish, hell Human psychology. Would that make a difference to anybody who was sufficiently committed?

And what would this new generation of the IRA do? I don't see these guys simply going home quietly and putting the kettle on, and many are concerned (rightly, if the comments in this forum like 'the sea is a nice place to go' are anything to go by) that they will try to settle scores. Which means the Irish state could get dragged into fighting them as well, just like the British army had to fight Unionists as well at times (Granted, they were biased as hell, just making the point.)

No, they don't have to have a workable state - look at Kosovo for instance, founded by a similar insurgency (which incidently led to the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Serbs.) Demographics aren't necessarily key to a given populations military effectiveness, or indeed how a campaign would normally go - otherwise the British empire itself would never have existed at all. And why exactly do you think they wouldn't be able to fight an effective campaign? Have you examined Unionists finances? Their number of men of potential fighting age? How about the numbers (considerable) who have experience of fighting in the army? Has anyone? Ulster Unionism would not have survived as long as it did if it was just some paper tiger being pushed up by the British, though I take your point that they were given considerable aid by the British government in the troubles. Overall, however, these are assumptions. That's the mother of all F-ups.

Ireland is NOT Germany. We have nowhere near the same balanced economy that they do. And indeed, that country (the eastern part anyway) went through a huge recession when they came back together anyway. If we were to go through another recession with mass unemployment as we periodically do, how do you all think the newly-integrated North would be effected by this? Wouldn’t that mean a whole bunch of disaffected youths would start going into these nasty organizations?

Pardon me for saying this, but this all sounds rather utopian. The likes of FF/FG have no interest in a massive reform of our healthcare or other systems, and are generally extremely conservative parties - as is most of the Irish political establishment. Do they have the mindset, intelligence, and imagination to handle something as large and complicated as this? I really doubt it. It also depends heavily on which of the (rare) economic studies one depends on, and there simply hasn’t been enough yet to definitively say reunification would be a good idea economically or not. Finally even if we are economically successful, look at Britain and Brexit- the obvious economic incentives to stay weren’t enough to dissuade them from separating from Europe. Ditto, the Unionists.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Arbitrary lines on arbitrary maps have been here since the dawn of human history. They haven't prevented anyone from living in harmony.

People have prevented people from living in harmony, most importantly leaders.

So the leaders of Unionism created a bigoted sectarian state that failed it's people and went up in flames.

Since the dawn of human history people have eventually rose up to throw off oppressive regimes. That is what happened here. Nothing unusual in it and even predicted when partition was first mooted.

Stop othering people who behaved no differently to the people on this part of the island.

Connacht15

Lads, if you think, The Brits, The Franco-Germanic Axis Bossed EU or The USA are going to pay for us to integrate the luvlee Nordies from both sides in to a UI, ye are on cloud cuckoo land!

Sometimes, I think even South and North Koreans have more in common with each other than us down South have with Nordies!

Connacht15

The Dominican Republic (quite a pleasant part of the world) and Haiti (hell on earth) share the same island of Hispanola!
Nobody from The Dominican Republic would ever dream of taking Haiti in to form a single state!