United Ireland Poll - please vote

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As a country we want a UI. That is the position.
Just like it is safe to say that as a country we think same sex couples should marry.

If those of you think the majority has changed it's opinion on wanting a UI, then begin the process of testing that - constitutionally.

Until then - we want a UI, if the north voted for it, we could accept without breaking any law or the constitution.

That is not the case anymore. The territorial claim has been dropped, and we want unification of the people now.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Unlike for the north the GFA is not specific about a referendum in the south but does say that

the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions

is required.

As consitutional changes down here would be required, a referendum, possibly several, would be required.

mehico

The fact there is already an aspiration for Unity in the Irish constitution would mean a referendum in the south would take a different form. I don't think the question would be "do you want a United Ireland?" This is already the aspiration.

It could be a referendum on the government's proposal or plan for a new Ireland for example.

FrancieBrady

mehico wrote: »

The fact there is already an aspiration for Unity in the Irish constitution would mean a referendum in the south would take a different form. I don't think the question would be "do you want a United Ireland?" This is already the aspiration.

It could be a referendum on the government's proposal or plan for a new Ireland for example.

The GFA wasn't a 'Yes or No' question either.

A change to a clause in the constitution was 'the question'.
If you voted for the change to the constitution that was taken as support for the GFA.

A UI referendum will be the same, as you say.

Our agreement will be a given.

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As a country we want a UI. That is the position.
Just like it is safe to say that as a country we think same sex couples should marry.

If those of you think the majority has changed it's opinion on wanting a UI, then begin the process of testing that - constitutionally.

Until then - we want a UI, if the north voted for it, we could accept without breaking any law or the constitution.

Did we say same sex couples should marry in 1998?

Not sure we would have sadly. As i said times a changing. Most I know have little bite for a UI and those that do have often never considered the changes to their lives.

While I have no expertise a lot here seem to think we would need a vote.. Guess the courts will probably decide it.

To practically make it happen would we not need to update the constitution further so there would be defacto votes required to make it a reality anyway? A no in any of them would scupper it in reality no?

FrancieBrady

FileNotFound wrote: »

Did we say same sex couples should marry in 1998?

Not sure we would have sadly. As i said times a changing. Most I know have little bite for a UI and those that do have often never considered the changes to their lives.

While I have no expertise a lot here seem to think we would need a vote.. Guess the courts will probably decide it.

To practically make it happen would we not need to update the constitution further so there would be defacto votes required to make it a reality anyway? A no in any of them would scupper it in reality no?

Was the decision taken to give same sex rights based on the views of 'most you know'? No, it wasn't.

The fact is...at the moment we aspire to a UI constitutionally. Nobody is even beginning the process of changing that.

So until that political voice emerges...we are where we are. If a UI was offered tomorrow, legally and constitutionally the government could accept it without needing a vote.

partyguinness

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The GFA wasn't a 'Yes or No' question either.

A change to a clause in the constitution was 'the question'.
If you voted for the change to the constitution that was taken as support for the GFA.

A UI referendum will be the same, as you say.

Our agreement will be a given.

That fact is missed by a lot of people. In the 'South', we only voted to amend Articles 2 and 3- not the GFA.

Even at the time (I voted at the time- against) lads thought they were voting for the GFA the same as in the North.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if someone challenged he need for a referendum come the time.

A referendum here is a sop to the partitionists really.

I personally think it's a good idea to have one, if only to silence the begrudgers.

Agreed. The idea of putting up with bleating and court cases from partitionists fills me with dread.

BonnieSituation

partyguinness wrote: »

That fact is missed by a lot of people. In the 'South', we only voted to amend Articles 2 and 3- not the GFA.

Even at the time (I voted at the time- against) lads thought they were voting for the GFA the same as in the North.

Well not quite.

You should look up the wording on the Nineteenth Amendment.

It added further text to Art 29.7 binding us to the agreement. It changed Arts 2 and 3. It added in Art 29.8.

Under no circumstances could anyone possibly argue that "we didn't vote on the GFA". In fact a cursory look at the amendment would show otherwise.

Off you pop for some learning.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was the decision taken to give same sex rights based on the views of 'most you know'? No, it wasn't.

The fact is...at the moment we aspire to a UI constitutionally. Nobody is even beginning the process of changing that.

So until that political voice emerges...we are where we are. If a UI was offered tomorrow, legally and constitutionally the government could accept it without needing a vote.

The Arins Project group disagree.

We'd have to remove the "aspiration" part for obvious reasons and that would require a referendum.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The Arins Project group disagree.

We'd have to remove the "aspiration" part for obvious reasons and that would require a referendum.

Can you link to this?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you link to this?

I did this morning. I only had a flick through so not sure of the reason.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

The Arins project have a paper out on this. They believe under Irish law a referendum is required.

The Agreement emphasises that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of ‘a majority of the people of Northern Ireland’. This provision is amplified in Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, using language mandated by the Agreement: the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is to be expressed ‘in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.’ It is our view that a referendum would also be legally required in the south, as certain amendments would need to be made to the Irish Constitution in order to allow the newly unified state to meet continuing obligations under the Agreement.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.3318/isia.2021.32b.18.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A57168994d912cac366927617eaa7cf0a

Here it is

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Here it is

Nobody is disputing that constitutional change will be necessary and that will require refenda, under our system.


The point is about whether we 'agree' to a UI...we do agree on it constitiutionally.

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is disputing that constitutional change will be necessary and that will require refenda, under our system.


The point is about whether we 'agree' to a UI...we do agree on it constitiutionally.

So a referendum will be required to make it a reality no matter the intentions laid out in the constitution?

All i am really wondering is will votes be required in the Republic or not?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is disputing that constitutional change will be necessary and that will require refenda, under our system.


The point is about whether we 'agree' to a UI...we do agree on it constitiutionally.

Does it matter? If the changes are not made then it can't go ahead.

Here is the source document that Arins based the claim on;

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/wgurii_executive_summary.pdf

FileNotFound

jh79 wrote: »

Does it matter? If the changes are not made then it can't go ahead.

Here is the source document that Arins based the claim on;

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/wgurii_executive_summary.pdf

Thats what I was wondering.

So Factually a UI will require a vote and consensus of the people in the Republic.

Grand, at least the impacts can be layed out and discussed so.

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Here it is

It is foolish to suggest a referendum would not be needed. It is strange that "republicans" oppose it. Real republicans favour referendums as a means of establishing the will of the people. Are they afraid of the view of the people?

FileNotFound

blanch152 wrote: »

It is foolish to suggest a referendum would not be needed. It is strange that "republicans" oppose it. Real republicans favour referendums as a means of establishing the will of the people. Are they afraid of the view of the people?

I'd say they honestly are.

The youth vote for SF was not on the grounds of UI but on social issues many of which would potentially be exacerbated by a UI.

Then SF being the biggest party on the island will rankle the anti SF vote.

Add that to the fact the North rarely hits the news down here for positive reasons.

Then many would hate to have the likes of the DUP in the Dail.

So on and so on... Heart says yes but heads may say no.

I still think right now a vote would carry for a UI but would be very close run thing. And then as the days tick by I think (personal opinion entirely) that it is moving away from a UI.

jh79

blanch152 wrote: »

It is foolish to suggest a referendum would not be needed. It is strange that "republicans" oppose it. Real republicans favour referendums as a means of establishing the will of the people. Are they afraid of the view of the people?

I reckon they are worried. We heard only last week that "dramatic" tax increases would be required. Not good news considering the last two polls had only 30 and 22 % willing to pay for a UI with increased taxes.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

It is foolish to suggest a referendum would not be needed. It is strange that "republicans" oppose it. Real republicans favour referendums as a means of establishing the will of the people. Are they afraid of the view of the people?

Who's opposing a referendum?

The fear of a referendum is all on your side Blanch.

We're having a discussion about whether it may be legally required given the Nineteenth Amendment referendum. It could be argued that it doesn't need to be.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Does it matter? If the changes are not made then it can't go ahead.

Here is the source document that Arins based the claim on;

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/wgurii_executive_summary.pdf

Well it does matter actually.

If one of the referenda to adjust/chane our constitution fails, that will not meant the UI project fails...all it means is that we go back to the drawing board and find agreement on the change needed to the constitution.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Who's opposing a referendum?

The fear of a referendum is all on your side Blanch.

We're having a discussion about whether it may be legally required given the Nineteenth Amendment referendum. It could be argued that it doesn't need to be.

Blanch is just setting up the usual misrepresentation so as he has an argument.

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well it does matter actually.

If one of the referenda to adjust/chane our constitution fails, that will not meant the UI project fails...all it means is that we go back to the drawing board and find agreement on the change needed to the constitution.

But a No vote in any would mean a block on UI at that time.

One question would be should we have these votes in the RoI prior to a UI vote in NI?

I mean the last thing we need is some new kind of brexit where NI wants in and have voted out of the union but can't get in.... I imagine that would cause a lot more harm than any good.

FrancieBrady

FileNotFound wrote: »

But a No vote in any would mean a block on UI at that time.

No, that is the point.
The question asked here won't be Yay or Nay to a UI. That is a given in the constitution already.

The constitutional referendums will be like the Lisbon referendums...if they fail to get agreement they will go back make the changes until they do.

Paddigol

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, that is the point.
The question asked here won't be Yay or Nay to a UI. That is a given in the constitution already.

The constitutional referendums will be like the Lisbon referendums...if they fail to get agreement they will go back make the changes until they do.

What will the question asked here be?

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, that is the point.
The question asked here won't be Yay or Nay to a UI. That is a given in the constitution already.

The constitutional referendums will be like the Lisbon referendums...if they fail to get agreement they will go back make the changes until they do.

It's great saying something is a given in the constitution but reality is that a yes vote in a referendum in RoI is required to make it actually happen.
So a No vote stops a UI happening at the time.
But another vote can be called, which may also be no and so on and so on.

EDIT: If peoples reasons for a No vote cannot be addressed by updates to the text being voted on what then?

FrancieBrady

FileNotFound wrote: »

It's great saying something is a given in the constitution but reality is that a yes vote in a referendum in RoI is required to make it actually happen.
So a No vote stops a UI happening at the time.
But another vote can be called, which may also be no and so on and so on.

EDIT: If peoples reasons for a No vote cannot be addressed by updates to the text being voted on what then?

I agree, there should be a ref.

What i am sayihg is I could see that being challenged and actually winning.

Technically our current state is acceptance. .

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree, there should be a ref.

What i am sayihg is I could see that being challenged and actually winning.

Technically our current state is acceptance. .

Would be a bit strange for a unified ireland to have a constitution saying we aspire to something we have achieved?

Gonna go with the experts on this, that a referendum is a requirement.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Would be a bit strange for a unified ireland to have a constitution saying we aspire to something we have achieved?

Gonna go with the experts on this, that a referendum is a requirement.

Referendums will be required. On the flag or anthem for instance.
But failure to get majorities on those just mean they dont change until there is a majority.

It wont mean a UI is rejected though.