United Ireland Poll - please vote

FileNotFound

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. .

Thats fair,

It's all a bit confusing for me, I don't have the requisite information I suppose.

Was never going to be a simple arrangement, would be nice if even in the south the Gov could work to create a clear potential path that unification would follow so we can see how it would be achieved.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

No, it would just mean the status quo is preferred and it stays that way ie a 26 counties Republic until a better plan comes along.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

A clean slate would be what's needed for Anthem & flag (obviously), that is if we want a fresh start on the island, and to encompass both main traditions. We need the majority of people to have ownership of flag and anthem, and the last thing we would want is for one million Unionist-British citizens up North to feel excluded.

The current flag & anthem totally excludes them for all the reasons that we already know about.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

No, it would just mean the status quo is preferred and it stays that way ie a 26 counties Republic until a better plan comes along.

The 'status quo' would simply be, we want a UI but we dont wish to change the anthem to the one suggested.

No, prob...back to the drawing board on an acceptable anthemn.
Meanwhile we get on unification.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'status quo' would simply be, we want a UI but we dont wish to change the anthem to the one suggested.

No, prob...back to the drawing board on an acceptable anthemn.
Meanwhile we get on unification.

We have an aspiration, to change that requires a referendum according to experts. Opinion Polls show a huge majority not willing to pay extra taxes. Nevermind support is on a downward trend in NI.

Getting a bit ahead of yourself with the flags and what not.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

We have an aspiration, to change that requires a referendum according to experts. Opinion Polls show a huge majority not willing to pay extra taxes. Nevermind support is on a downward trend in NI.

Getting a bit ahead of yourself with the flags and what not.

One wonders WHY you would frequent these threads if you were as certain of things as you pretend to be.

FileNotFound

Hamsterchops wrote: »

A clean slate would be what's needed for Anthem & flag (obviously), that is if we want a fresh start on the island, and to encompass both main traditions. We need the majority of people to have ownership of flag and anthem, and the last thing we would want is for one million Unionist-British citizens up North to feel excluded.

The current flag & anthem totally excludes them for all the reasons that we already know about.

I wonder how many realise the anthem and flag would have to change I agree that if we have a UI we need a fresh start across the board.

I'd say lots of UI fans would baulk at the concept of losing the anthem and flag as is as a result.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One wonders WHY you would frequent these threads if you were as certain of things as you pretend to be.

I find it interesting. Now the opinion polls are not going your way and SF's chosen economist found no real benefit to a UI, we now don't need a referendum in the Republic!

jimmycrackcorm

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 isn't correct. Article 3 says this:

reccognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

We only had a referendum to agree on the change to the constitution, we still need to democratically express consent to a united Ireland.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I find it interesting. Now the opinion polls are not going your way and SF's chosen economist found no real benefit to a UI, we now don't need a referendum in the Republic!

Sure. You keep pretending on all the fronts you have to.

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure. You keep pretending on all the fronts you have to.

Is what Jimmy says above accurate? It would read like we need a vote to even start the process by that text?

There seems to be 2 very different opinions here - and the only text quoted (by Jimmy) seems to support the "we would have to vote to approve in RoI view.

Or is this superseded somewhere else?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Nothing will change unless everything changes.

If the North votes for a united Ireland on the basis of a different flag and anthem, and the South votes against changing the flag and anthem, then a united Ireland has been rejected.

There is some really silly pipe-dream nonsense being posted.

People North and South are waking up to the reality of what a united Ireland might mean, and contrary to the expectations of republicans, support for a united Ireland is softening, as the more recent polls have shown.

blanch152

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. .

You are talking complete nonsense as usual.

An aspiration to unite people is not actionable.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One wonders WHY you would frequent these threads if you were as certain of things as you pretend to be.

People frequent flat earth threads to tell posters that the world is round. Pretty similar equivalence.

FrancieBrady

FileNotFound wrote: »

Is what Jimmy says above accurate? It would read like we need a vote to even start the process by that text?

There seems to be 2 very different opinions here - and the only text quoted (by Jimmy) seems to support the "we would have to vote to approve in RoI view.

Or is this superseded somewhere else?

Playing devil's advocate...we have already democratically voted on a UI.

We 'aspire' to a UI.

You can't aspire to something and be in a state of doubt at the same time.

Barry904

Boards must be filled with upper class south Dubliners, the amount of Brit loving partionists on this site is hard to believe.

blanch152

FileNotFound wrote: »

Is what Jimmy says above accurate? It would read like we need a vote to even start the process by that text?

There seems to be 2 very different opinions here - and the only text quoted (by Jimmy) seems to support the "we would have to vote to approve in RoI view.

Or is this superseded somewhere else?

No, it is not superseded somewhere else.

Many "republicans" fear a referendum because all of the issues of the cost, the terrorism, the lack of integration in the North will come to the fore.

The Alliance approach of first solving the differences in the North through integration offers the best realistic peaceful outcome to Northern Ireland. The "republicans" think peace comes by getting what they want, whether or not others agree.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate...we have already democratically voted on a UI.

We 'aspire' to a UI.

You can't aspire to something and be in a state of doubt at the same time.

I aspire to winning the Euromillions but doubt that I can achieve it.

I also aspire to playing soccer for Ireland but doubt that I can achieve it, espcially given my age.

Aspirations are formalised dreams, wishes and hopes, nothing more.

briany

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/two-thirds-of-people-in-ireland-do-not-want-flag-to-change-if-irish-unity-is-achieved-poll-shows-208853

If put to a referendum, it's likely that proposals about changing the flag or anthem would be voted down. So, if that was the system, British Unionists would have no say in matters, and would be told to suck it up.

briany

Barry904 wrote: »

Boards must be filled with upper class south Dubliners, the amount of Brit loving partionists on this site is hard to believe.

:rolleyes:

I think calling people 'partitionists' is just lazy barstooler language used to browbeat anyone asking questions about the feasibility of a UI or how it would work or whatever.

jimmycrackcorm

FileNotFound wrote: »

Is what Jimmy says above accurate? It would read like we need a vote to even start the process by that text?

There seems to be 2 very different opinions here - and the only text quoted (by Jimmy) seems to support the "we would have to vote to approve in RoI view.

Or is this superseded somewhere else?

Nobody in the south has voted explicitly for unification. We voted to reflect our firm will to create a united Irish people. But what we voted for also explicitly states it must be democratically expressed. I don't see how there is any dispute about it - it's there in black and white in article 3.

e.g. Wiki explainer
Article 3
As amended, Article 3, Section 1 expresses the "firm will" of the Irish nation to create a united Irish people, though not, explicitly, a united country. It stresses, however, that a united Ireland should respect the distinct cultural identity of Unionists and that it should only happen with the separate "democratically expressed" consent of the peoples of both parts of the island. This provision was intended to diminish the concerns of Unionists, that their rights would be ignored in a united Ireland, should that happen. By the Good Friday Agreement the people of Northern Ireland's "democratically expressed" consent must be secured by referendum. For a provision that states the "Irish Nation"'s desire for unity, it adds an additional legal requirement for a referendum to be held not only in Northern Ireland but also in the Republic of Ireland before a united Ireland could be brought about. This has the effect of creating an extra hurdle to Irish acceptance of a cession of Northern Ireland's territory from the UK which would not apply to a cession of any other territory.

ARTICLE 3 Statute text

1 It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

blanch152

briany wrote: »

https://www.irishpost.com/news/two-thirds-of-people-in-ireland-do-not-want-flag-to-change-if-irish-unity-is-achieved-poll-shows-208853

If put to a referendum, it's likely that proposals about changing the flag or anthem would be voted down. So, if that was the system, British Unionists would have no say in matters, and would be told to suck it up.

A Twitter poll? Come on, be serious.

If a new flag is negotiated as part of a deal for a united Ireland and the people down South reject a united Ireland on that basis, then a united Ireland is rejected.

However, this is a discussion akin to saying if the world was flat, how would sail off the edge, and where does the water go?

jh79

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Nobody in the south has voted explicitly for unification. We voted to reflect our firm will to create a united Irish people. But what we voted for also explicitly states it must be democratically expressed. I don't see how there is any dispute about it - it's there in black and white in article 3.

Last two opinion polls in the Republic coupled with the findings of Hubner, Doyle and Fitzgerlad on the financial aspects are the reasons we suddenly don't need a poll.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate...we have already democratically voted on a UI.

We 'aspire' to a UI.

You can't aspire to something and be in a state of doubt at the same time.

I doubt very few of us, who are not unionists, do not aspire to a UI.
Does that mean we aspire by any means necessary? no.
You can aspire and be in a state of doubt about it - aspiration is hope or desire, not a specific acknowledgement that it can be achieved.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Last two opinion polls in the Republic coupled with the findings of Hubner, Doyle and Fitzgerlad on the financial aspects are the reasons we suddenly don't need a poll.

The majority in the South want a UI...they also want a Border Poll in both jurisdictions.

Barry904

"Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" one of the greatest reasons for a united Ireland so we can put the past behind us once and for all and come together as a people once and for all.

It might be a rocky start but once we end whatever small civil unease that will arise it will end it once and for all, the question of a constitutional change will never arise again.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The majority in the South want a UI...they also want a Border Poll in both jurisdictions.

The majority in the Republic only want it if they don't have to pay for it. Only 22% willing to pay extra taxes and we know "dramatic" tax increases would be needed.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The majority in the Republic only want it if they don't have to pay for it. Only 22% willing to pay extra taxes and we know "dramatic" tax increases would be needed.

The majority want a UI jh.

Constitutionally, all is well.

StupidLikeAFox

Barry904 wrote: »

"Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" one of the greatest reasons for a united Ireland so we can put the past behind us once and for all and come together as a people once and for all..

You talk about putting the past behind us, but the greatest reason you can find is a graveside quote uttered 106 years ago??

Tbh I'm not particularly against a united ireland but nobody has presented a compelling enough argument to vote for one. I would be voting on the basis of of what impact it would have in the short and medium term, for my kids and grandkids. I'm not going to vote yes to please the ghost of Michael Collins, especially if it means the next generation and the one after that are hobbled, it wouldn't make sense.

You wont win my heart or mind by calling me a "brit loving partitionist" either

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Last two opinion polls in the Republic coupled with the findings of Hubner, Doyle and Fitzgerlad on the financial aspects are the reasons we suddenly don't need a poll.

Absolutely, the "republicans" are running scared of polls.

They want one in the North because it is slipping away there, and the dream is that a referendum campaign could close the gap. If this push fails in the aftermath of Brexit, there might not be a better time ever.