United Ireland Poll - please vote

Kermit.de.frog

downcow wrote: »

I believe so.

If the Earth was created 6,000 years a go where does he think the Giant's Causeway came from?

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If the Earth was created 6,000 years a go where does he think the Giant's Causeway came from?

The clue is in the name obvs.

Barry904

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What will you call your new country? What flag will it fly? Where will your capital be? Will it remove the aspiration for unification from your new constitution? Will it mark the 1916 anniversaries? Where do the patriots figure in your new country?

Lots of things for you to consider.

Dublin will obviously be the capital anyone with half a brain can work that one out.

We could change the flag if we wanted to as a gesture to the 49% but not really a big deal if we don't want to.

Obviously it remove the "aspiration" for unification from the constitution if we are already unified what kind of question even is that?

Of course the 1916 anniversaries will be marked.

What kind of dumb questions are these?

If a democratic vote passes and the people of the North voted for unification why do some people think we would have to change nearly everything?

Junkyard Tom

Barry904 wrote: »

What kind of dumb questions are these?

Haha, hold your horses there a second.

I'm asking the partitionists what they will call their new country if they manage to 'win' a no-to-unification vote in the south. Because I'm not sure 'Ireland', Dublin, the Tricolour, the constitution, and everything else that goes with the current state, would be appropriate for their dream of a permanently partitioned Ireland.

downcow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If the Earth was created 6,000 years a go where does he think the Giant's Causeway came from?

Fin Mc cool fell out with the scottish giant and started building a causeway across

BonnieSituation

Barry904 wrote: »

Dublin will obviously be the capital anyone with half a brain can work that one out.

We could change the flag if we wanted to as a gesture to the 49% but not really a big deal if we don't want to.

Obviously it remove the "aspiration" for unification from the constitution if we are already unified what kind of question even is that?

Of course the 1916 anniversaries will be marked.

What kind of dumb questions are these?

If a democratic vote passes and the people of the North voted for unification why do some people think we would have to change nearly everything?

You misunderstood JunkyardTom.

He's asking well known partitionist jh79 these questions in the hypothetical scenario of what would happen if we rejected reunification in the South.

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If the Earth was created 6,000 years a go where does he think the Giant's Causeway came from?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The clue is in the name obvs.

downcow wrote: »

Fin Mc cool fell out with the scottish giant and started building a causeway across

Facts is facts! :cool:

Barry904

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Haha, hold your horses there a second.

I'm asking the partitionists what they will call their new country if they manage to 'win' a no-to-unification vote in the south. Because I'm not sure 'Ireland', Dublin, the Tricolour, the constitution, and everything else that goes with the current state, would be appropriate for their dream of a permanently partitioned Ireland.

Oh I see, I misinterpated your post.

BonnieSituation

Barry904 wrote: »

Oh I see, I misinterpated your post.

Easily done.

Whe're old hands at this point dealing with belligerence.

No sign of them in the Ballymurphy thread again today. Funny that.

StupidLikeAFox

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yep.

But in the event of a no vote, nothing would change down south. Not practically. The south would still aspire to a united ireland and probably come back and vote again a few years down the road. A "no" vote down south isn't final and isn't an end to the aspiration of a united ireland

Kermit.de.frog

downcow wrote: »

Fin Mc cool fell out with the scottish giant and started building a causeway across

You can make light of it all you like.

I don't believe anywhere in this day and age should have a leader in any capacity who is a creationist and believes in that nonsense.

BonnieSituation

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

But in the event of a no vote, nothing would change down south. Not practically. The south would still aspire to a united ireland and probably come back and vote again a few years down the road. A "no" vote down south isn't final and isn't an end to the aspiration of a united ireland

It's not in a technical sense. And this is the point that is being made by myself, Tom and others.

If you reject the very nature of the aspiration that you've had for a century say, then of course the very nature of the republic that remains is obviously changed as well. It can't not be.Sure, some resident partitionists may parade the idea that they'll go about their business the next day as if it was a result of a football match, but I just don't see how you could.
The State changes fundamentally the next day.

Yes, we could vote again, but after a seismic rejection, again, of our Northern citizenry; I don't think you get that genie back into the bottle.

Junkyard Tom

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

But in the event of a no vote, nothing would change down south. Not practically. The south would still aspire to a united ireland and probably come back and vote again a few years down the road. A "no" vote down south isn't final and isn't an end to the aspiration of a united ireland

Oh so it wouldn't be a 'no' vote it'd be a 'not now' vote? So it would be essentially be a 'yes' vote with conditions? Also, you could end up splitting the partitionist vote between 'not nows' and 'nevers', so you already have factions and an alliance with unionists?

The 'not-nows', 'nevers', neo-unionists and assorted oddballs will be fascinating to observe.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Yes, we could vote again, but after a seismic rejection, again, of our Northern citizenry

Not just the northern citizenry and their fellow UIers in the 26 counties, it's a rejection of everything to do with our country that has developed before that point. It would be a political earthquake.

StupidLikeAFox

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Oh so it wouldn't be a 'no' vote it'd be a 'not now' vote? So it would be essentially be a 'yes' vote with conditions? Also, you could end up splitting the partitionist vote between 'not nows' and 'nevers', so you already have factions and an alliance with unionists?

The 'not-nows', 'nevers', neo-unionists and assorted oddballs will be fascinating to observe.

No, it would definitely be a "No" vote, and there would clear reasons for that - cost, no transition plan, fear of violence or whatever. In that event there is nothing to stop the relevant parties working to mitigate those issues, then press for another poll if/when both populations were in favour, as per the constitution.

I'm not sure what would materially change in the south. There would be political fallout of course, but nobody is going to go changing Irelands flag, anthem etc

Its all hypothetical of course, everyone who says they are in favour of a united ireland has a different idea in their head of what that looks like

Junkyard Tom

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I'm not sure what would materially change in the south. There would be political fallout of course, but nobody is going to go changing Irelands flag, anthem etc

Eh the Flag, anthem, and everything else, most certainly would not be appropriate for a new arrangement that rejected the vision for our country

briany

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Its all hypothetical of course, everyone who says they are in favour of a united ireland has a different idea in their head of what that looks like

This is a problem, alright. We've already seen with Brexit that there comes a point where aspiration meets reality and that can get messy. We like to think that we know how to do referenda in this country, but in the case of a border poll there isn't any concrete set of proposals in place for a UI.

Here are a few things I would like to know in the case about UI was voted for - would there be a transition period? If yes, how long would it be? Would there be negotiations on what this new Ireland would look like? Who with? What would happen if these talks failed to find agreement?

Brexit at least had a timetable of sorts. I think it would be a good idea to get the same in place for a UI.

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Eh the Flag, anthem, and everything else, most certainly would not be appropriate for a new arrangement that rejected the vision for our country

Doesn't mean it would change. Can't see the beligerent minority who can't accept the democratic will of the people forcing a change if it's not wanted.

FileNotFound

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Eh the Flag, anthem, and everything else, most certainly would not be appropriate for a new arrangement that rejected the vision for our country

Being appropriate is not the same as something having to change.

These are romantic notions rather than practical ones.

On a practical level what would change in the Republic in the case of a No?

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Haha, hold your horses there a second.

I'm asking the partitionists what they will call their new country if they manage to 'win' a no-to-unification vote in the south. Because I'm not sure 'Ireland', Dublin, the Tricolour, the constitution, and everything else that goes with the current state, would be appropriate for their dream of a permanently partitioned Ireland.

It isn't a "new country".

If, in a border poll, the South votes no, all that means is that they are not acting on the constitutional aspiration at this point in time, because they believe it is not currently appropriate to do so.

Nothing changes in the South. The conditions under which unification might happen would become clearer, but nothing else would change.

For example, there are many people who would like a united Ireland, but only when the people of Northern Ireland have learned to live with each other, integrated education and other parts of society and have lessened their dependency on UK subvention and the public sector. They would vote NO in a border poll tomorrow, but could vote YES at some point in the future, hence the aspiration remaining entirely legitimate.

I aspire to be an airline pilot, but if I somehow got the chance to sit in a pilot's seat on a plane, I would be very foolish to act on that aspiration as I have had no training and the only question would be how bad the crash would be before I even took off. Same thing for a united Ireland.

padd b1975

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well, that's it settled so.

It's certainly conclusive.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Oh so it wouldn't be a 'no' vote it'd be a 'not now' vote? So it would be essentially be a 'yes' vote with conditions? Also, you could end up splitting the partitionist vote between 'not nows' and 'nevers', so you already have factions and an alliance with unionists?

The 'not-nows', 'nevers', neo-unionists and assorted oddballs will be fascinating to observe.


Not just the northern citizenry and their fellow UIers in the 26 counties, it's a rejection of everything to do with our country that has developed before that point. It would be a political earthquake.

Quite the opposite.

It would be embracing everything to do with our country that has developed. We have been independent for 100 years, standing on our own two feet, and developed into one of the best countries in the world to live in. Nothing wrong with saying that is good enough for us and accepting and embracing it, while rejecting the vile old-style sectarianism of the North and not wanting our country infected by it.

FrancieBrady

I see the anti Protocol-ers are spitting it out clearly at last - they want the border on the land and the sea border got rid of. (See Ben Habib on twitter)

The UK are ramping up the vile provocations by wanting it sorted by 12th July (has there ever been a more cynical and irresponsible act from this Johnson government?)

Time for Ireland to respond by demanding a say for the people of the north in a democratic vote.

briany

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I see the anti Protocol-ers are spitting it out clearly at last - they want the border on the land and the sea border got rid of. (See Ben Habib on twitter)

The UK are ramping up the vile provocations by wanting it sorted by 12th July (has there ever been a more cynical and irresponsible act from this Johnson government?)

Time for Ireland to respond by demanding a say for the people of the north in a democratic vote.

I remember Jacob Rees Mogg being pretty open about his preference on where a customs border goes (it would be a few miles back from the actual border), so Habib's comments are hardly surprising, especially when you remember that he's a former Brexit party MEP.

FrancieBrady

briany wrote: »

I remember Jacob Rees Mogg being pretty open about his preference on where a customs border goes (it would be a few miles back from the actual border), so Habib's comments are hardly surprising, especially when you remember that he's a former Brexit party MEP.

No JRM thought there was technological solution and that the border did not need to be a hard one.
That is different.

downcow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You can make light of it all you like.

I don't believe anywhere in this day and age should have a leader in any capacity who is a creationist and believes in that nonsense.

I agree 100% with you. I was not making light of it.
As I discussed earlier we have leaders in this country who believe the world is 6,000 years old and we have leaders who believe bread and wine actually turn into body and blood. Where in the world would this happen? Oh wait, just the most powerful country in the world, lol.

I agree. The sooner these extreme Protestants and Catholics have less power the better.

Same goes for the education system. We have school systems here teaching 6,000 year old earth and some even teaching that wine can turn into blood.

It’s a mad world

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Oh so it wouldn't be a 'no' vote it'd be a 'not now' vote? So it would be essentially be a 'yes' vote with conditions? Also, you could end up splitting the partitionist vote between 'not nows' and 'nevers', so you already have factions and an alliance with unionists?

The 'not-nows', 'nevers', neo-unionists and assorted oddballs will be fascinating to observe.


Not just the northern citizenry and their fellow UIers in the 26 counties, it's a rejection of everything to do with our country that has developed before that point. It would be a political earthquake.

I like this idea Tom. Would be an excellent strategy for unionists in a poll to say, we need another few years to get ready. That might sway a few nationalists to vote No (not now)

FileNotFound

blanch152 wrote: »

Quite the opposite.

It would be embracing everything to do with our country that has developed. We have been independent for 100 years, standing on our own two feet, and developed into one of the best countries in the world to live in. Nothing wrong with saying that is good enough for us and accepting and embracing it, while rejecting the vile old-style sectarianism of the North and not wanting our country infected by it.

I don't get how people are missing this. RoI is a modern nation with forward thinking attitudes.

The mindset of some in the North is abhorrent to most in the Republic.

It's not that anyone would not want a UI - it's sadly the divisive sad old misery mindset full of hate and anger we have no time for.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Nothing changes in the South.

God love ye.

FrancieBrady

FileNotFound wrote: »

I don't get how people are missing this. RoI is a modern nation with forward thinking attitudes.

The mindset of some in the North is abhorrent to most in the Republic.

It's not that anyone would not want a UI - it's sadly the divisive sad old misery mindset full of hate and anger we have no time for.

The mindset of some in the south is abhorrent to most in the south and the north.

The 67% who want a UI in the south.

gormdubhgorm

I don't know is this the right place to put this. The mods can move if they wish.

I never saw it before. Obviously aimed at the USA market. De Valera discussing Ireland and Irish Independence back in 1955.

De Valera would have been 62/63 in 1955. He seemed as sharp as a tack and his speech was off the cuff.

@12.00 was the discussion of partition etc and he gave a global context.