United Ireland Poll - please vote

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The majorities want a border poll, which means they want the discussion and a plan.

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of State should ignore the provisions of the GFA?

It doesn't matter whether a majority want a border poll, it only matters whether a border poll is likely to pass. Holding one before then is a significant breach of the GFA. If you are up for changing the GFA, that's fine by me, I have a list. Until then, you can't call anyone else out on the GFA if you are looking for a border poll just because majorities want one.

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You partitionists/unionists are like Brexiters, you think if you get your way everything remains just as it is....

I think partitionism and unionism are far from the same thing. Unionists are de facto partitionists (although they probably consider nationalists the partitionists), but partitionists aren't necessarily unionists

Junkyard Tom

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think partitionism and unionism are far from the same thing. Unionists are de facto partitionists (although they probably consider nationalists the partitionists), but partitionists aren't necessarily unionists

You will end up on the same side when the time comes for a referendum whether you like it or not.

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You will end up on the same side when the time comes for a referendum whether you like it or not.

Obviously.

Vestiapx

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

NI is Ireland and it's not going anywhere. This stuff isn't going away, it's in the DNA of this country.

You partitionists/unionists are like Brexiters, you think if you get your way everything remains just as it is.

Let me assure you one thing, it definitely will not.



Is this some sort of fever-dream you're speaking of? Because that ain't happening.

When was there a 32 county Ireland run by the Irish? it never existed anymore than a United South America or a United Iberia.

Just because the Island is an island is not a reason we want it all to be one country.

sebdavis

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I suggest you read it too, there is no stipulation for a referendum on whether people want to pay for a UI theoretically at some point in the future.

The desperation is embarrassing.

Who is desperate?
I have said I would love a United Ireland. Most people here have said the same.

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

NI is Ireland and it's not going anywhere. This stuff isn't going away, it's in the DNA of this country.

You partitionists/unionists are like Brexiters, you think if you get your way everything remains just as it is.

Let me assure you one thing, it definitely will not.



Is this some sort of fever-dream you're speaking of? Because that ain't happening.

Did you miss the most recent opinion poll. Only 22% willing to accept tax increases .

SF own prediction is a measly 1.2 % increase in GDP per capita over 8 years. No suggestions from them on how we pay for all the investment required.

The Dail was told today that the harmonization required (That SF own report said was needed) would lead to "dramatic" tax increases or cuts to services.

It's gonna be a hard sell and so far the majority don't want to pay for it.

The British won't force one on us, what would be the point?

Until public opinion changes in the Republic the British won't see any point in calling one.

Hamsterchops

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

When the north votes in favour of a United Ireland it's going to happen sooner or later. What do people think would happen with a pro-UI vote in the north and rejection in the south? Everything goes back to the way it was? Not a hope in hell.

NI ceases to exist the day after a pro-UI vote in the north and we'll be working out how we reunite Ireland one way or another, anyone who thinks this plays any other way really hasn't a bull's notion.

You keep hammering this home Tom, you always say with the greatest certainty that it's a forgone conclusion that Northern Ireland will cease to exist, and that it will become one with us in the not too distant future?

But I'm not picking that up from anybody else, not in the short term anyway, yes "maybe" in twenty five years time, but not much sooner, so why are so sure that we will inherit Northern Ireland sooner or later?

... also, are you not even a little concerned at the financial cost of taking on the North (as London let's go), and what about an unwilling Unionist & Loyalist population, that really do not want to be separated & cut off from the Mothership (GB).

I guess GB would be happy to let it go, but would we be ready to take it on?

Junkyard Tom

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Northern Ireland will cease to exist

It will cease to exist in its current form, certainly.

and that it will become one with us in the very near future! But I'm not picking that up from anybody else, not in the short term anyway, yes "maybe" in twenty five years time, but not much sooner, so why are so sure that we will inherit Northern Ireland in the very near future?

I've never said this, I'm not in any rush. The people in the north can take their sweet time, they're the ones who've been victimised by partition so in my books they can lead the way on all this.

... also, are you not even a little concerned at the financial cost of taking on the North

Yes but I don't consider the costs in the short term, the costs we've accumulated over the century must be in the hundreds of billions on the island as a whole. I truly believe we're 50 years behind where we should be because of the counter-revolutions that took hold post-partition. We also have to balance against the potential disruption caused by political strife.

and what about an unwilling Unionist & Loyalist population, that really do not want to be separated & cut off from the Mothership (GB).

Firstly, my concern is with those who will want a United Ireland not those who oppose it and secondly nobody is going to cut former Unionists off from Britain and I'm sure there will be accommodations on citizenship and rights.

Junkyard Tom

Vestiapx wrote: »

When was there a 32 county Ireland run by the Irish?

When was there not someone trying to prevent it by threat of terrorism and war? It's a dumb question.

Junkyard Tom

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Obviously.

Try thinking that through, it would be a ****show of monumental proportions and probably quite funny seeing partitonists allying themselves with the likes of Sammy Wilson (which his type would revel in).

Do any of you lads play poker or chess? Connect four? Ever try to game things out in your minds or is it just reflexive positions you adopt?

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Try thinking that through, it would be a ****show of monumental proportions and probably quite funny seeing partitonists allying themselves with the likes of Sammy Wilson (which his type would revel in).

I think voting the same way as Sammy Wilson on one occasion is a small price to pay to avoid having the annoyance of having to deal with the likes of Sammy Wilson forever more.

FrancieBrady

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think voting the same way as Sammy Wilson on one occasion is a small price to pay to avoid having the annoyance of having to deal with the likes of Sammy Wilson forever more.

Will the 69% who want a UI consign their felliow Irish people to live under a partitionist endorsed no doubt triumphalist Unionism when push comes to shove though?

BonnieSituation

Vestiapx wrote: »

When was there a 32 county Ireland run by the Irish? it never existed anymore than a United South America or a United Iberia.

Just because the Island is an island is not a reason we want it all to be one country.

Back to this again.

My my... We should just start listing the paritionist talking points so that they consult them before engaging needlessly on these threads.

Junkyard Tom

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think voting the same way as Sammy Wilson on one occasion is a small price to pay to avoid having the annoyance of having to deal with the likes of Sammy Wilson forever more.

A United Ireland is the surest way to end Sammy Wilson and any future Sammy Wilson, they literally live for partition and British jurisdiction.

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A United Ireland is the surest way to end Sammy Wilson and any future Sammy Wilson, they literally live for partition and British jurisdiction.

I think that's quite naive. Ni being part of the UK hardly ended the Shinners and their like?

StupidLikeAFox

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A United Ireland is the surest way to end Sammy Wilson and any future Sammy Wilson, they literally live for partition and British jurisdiction.

"Sticking it to Sammy wilson" is not a very compelling reason to vote for a UI

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will the 69% who want a UI consign their felliow Irish people to live under a partitionist endorsed no doubt triumphalist Unionism when push comes to shove though?

Probably, it not like people think it's a bed of roses at the moment yet still the majority don't want to pay for it.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Probably, it not like people think it's a bed of roses at the moment yet still the majority don't want to pay for it.

Nonsense...they don't want to pay more tax for an unknown...they do want a UI though and they do want a Border Poll.

Junkyard Tom

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

"Sticking it to Sammy wilson" is not a very compelling reason to vote for a UI

This is much bigger than 'sticking it to Sammy Wilson' or any one individual. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Loudmouthed Unionists exist because of partition/British jurisdiction.

You take British rule out of the equation and you remove that 'Never Never Never' variable from the future and we get an opportunity to normalise the country. The likes of Paisley, Wilson and Campbell would be non-entities in a United Ireland.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense...they don't want to pay more tax for an unknown...they do want a UI though and they do want a Border Poll.

Yes they do want a UI just not if involves paying for it via taxation.

Changes to the flags etc won't change the amount of funding required. Whether the subvention is 2 or 3 bn won't change the amount either.

If and that's a big if, someone figures out how to do it without increasing taxes i think it would easily pass.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Yes they do want a UI just not if involves paying for it via taxation.

Changes to the flags etc won't change the amount of funding required. Whether the subvention is 2 or 3 bn won't change the amount either.

If and that's a big if, someone figures out how to do it without increasing taxes i think it would easily pass.

When people are told what they are getting then and only then can we get a proper answer.

jimmycrackcorm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You will end up on the same side when the time comes for a referendum whether you like it or not.

It all sounds so dreamy to have a unified Island right now and the clamour for a border poll is solely based on that. But the devil is in the detail. I'd bet that a lot of moderate nationalists in the North would vote against reunification once it becomes clear how much VRT they will pay for their cars and when they realize they will lose their NHS.

For the growing middle ground which is the battle area that is neither DUP nor SF voters, a NI that is tied both to the EU and GB is a much more attractive proposition than reunification. It's actually hard to see what benefits there are for a non-SF voter in the North to choose to join the south.

When it comes down to it, people will vote along the lines of "What's in it for me". I don't think here in the south that we have many "partitionists", just people who say - reunification is welcome once you stop being so backwards and pull your weight economically.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When people are told what they are getting then and only then can we get a proper answer.

Very vague answer.

So what's the big unknown that a person in Cork will be getting that will swing 22% to a majority? Based on SF's prediction it isn't financial. We are already in the EU, unification doesn't offer any advantage for trade with the UK.

Only "unknown" is whether we can convince someone else to pay for it.

jimmycrackcorm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This is much bigger than 'sticking it to Sammy Wilson' or any one individual. Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Loudmouthed Unionists exist because of partition/British jurisdiction.

You take British rule out of the equation and you remove that 'Never Never Never' variable from the future and we get an opportunity to normalise the country. The likes of Paisley, Wilson and Campbell would be non-entities in a United Ireland.

Unionist politicians aren't the problem - once a border poll is announced, I would not be surprised if there was another Dublin car bomb to make people in the south think twice about their vote.

Junkyard Tom

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I would not be surprised if there was another Dublin car bomb to make people in the south think twice about their vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parade_of_horribles#As_a_rhetorical_device

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Back to this again.

My my... We should just start listing the paritionist talking points so that they consult them before engaging needlessly on these threads.

Given that most of those talking point remain valid and unrebuffed, it might well be a good idea to list them, so that some of the Don Quixote figures living in the past might have a go at toppling them.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Given that most of those talking point remain valid and unrebuffed, it might well be a good idea to list them, so that some of the Don Quixote figures living in the past might have a go at toppling them.

Except that particular point has been rebutted pretty much every single time it has come up (on at least five occasions myself, the first being around two years ago, the most recent a few months back).

It is never actually presented by someone with any sort of grasp of the pre-Anglo-Norman invasion history of the island, never engaged with further once rebutted, it is purely thrown into the mix by folk trying to antagonistically demean the aspiration for unification.

By all means be opposed to the concept, but maybe dig a bit deeper than copy/pasting generic unfounded or inaccurate Loyalist talking points.

Economic concerns are totally valid and understandable. Fear of the threat of Loyalist violence is understandable (though I personally feel it is overblown), presenting distorted and inaccurate historical commentary.....not so much.

I'm aware that you didn't make the ridiculous original point, I'm responding to you purely because you stated that most of these points remain valid in response to someone questioning it. Your opinions and the opinions of anyone who favours continued partition remain valid....the point your quote was responding to doesn't. It's quite simply wrong.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Except that particular point has been rebutted pretty much every single time it has come up (on at least five occasions myself, the first being around two years ago, the most recent a few months back).

It is never actually presented by someone with any sort of grasp of the pre-Anglo-Norman invasion history of the island, never engaged with further once rebutted, it is purely thrown into the mix by folk trying to antagonistically demean the aspiration for unification.

By all means be opposed to the concept, but maybe dig a bit deeper than copy/pasting generic unfounded or inaccurate Loyalist talking points.

Economic concerns are totally valid and understandable. Fear of the threat of Loyalist violence is understandable (though I personally feel it is overblown), presenting distorted and inaccurate historical commentary.....not so much.

I'm aware that you didn't make the ridiculous original point, I'm responding to you purely because you stated that most of these points remain valid in response to someone questioning it. Your opinions and the opinions of anyone who favours continued partition remain valid....the point your quote was responding to doesn't. It's quite simply wrong.

It has not been rebutted. Folk tales of Brian Boru don't make a country united under one regime. The historical fact is that Ireland has never been united, except under British rule.

Hamsterchops

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It all sounds so dreamy to have a unified Island right now and the clamour for a border poll is solely based on that. But the devil is in the detail. I'd bet that a lot of moderate nationalists in the North would vote against reunification once it becomes clear how much VRT they will pay for their cars and when they realize they will lose their NHS.

For the growing middle ground which is the battle area that is neither DUP nor SF voters, a NI that is tied both to the EU and GB is a much more attractive proposition than reunification. It's actually hard to see what benefits there are for a non-SF voter in the North to choose to join the south.

When it comes down to it, people will vote along the lines of "What's in it for me". I don't think here in the south that we have many "partitionists", just people who say - reunification is welcome once you stop being so backwards and pull your weight economically.

The bold bit is very interesting, as it might really halt the march to a United Ireland (as in theory) Brexit could bring them the best of both worlds, but only if they'd just stop arguing ovre the sea border/customs details.

The best of both worlds if they stay as they are?