United Ireland Poll - please vote

FileNotFound

jh79 wrote: »

Gerry and Conor. Gerry shot some guy in the head escaping prison but is now on the board of the PSNI.

If he can adapt to and work for the British surely the average FG memeber could accept a 26 county Republic.

I'd say the average FG member already happily accepts a 26 county Ireland.
Don't see Leo and Co dissolving after a No vote. Lets be honest.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Gerry and Conor. Gerry shot some guy in the head escaping prison but is now on the board of the PSNI.

If he can adapt to and work for the British surely the average FG memeber could accept a 26 county Republic.

Oh brilliant, I love this development.

Let's try and mock people to keep partition going.
Promise me you'll bring that out in writing jh79---gamechanger!

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Oh right.

Arrangements in the north are not permanent and Republicans have always considered them a means to an end. I get it though, you hate SF, there's a thread for all that isn't there?

Edit: Yes there is a SF thread, and between yourself and Blanch you have nearly 900 posts in it.

You'll notice how many I have... 0.

You're not doing the SF supporters on here any favours. More of a double agent!

So "Project Fear" involves FF/FG sticking to their Republican principles to a great extent than SF did in NI?

Think we'll be ok!

Junkyard Tom

FileNotFound wrote: »

I'd say the average FG member already happily accepts a 26 county Ireland.
Don't see Leo and Co dissolving after a No vote. Lets be honest.

FG trace their heritage back to the original SF don't they? They claim to be the party of Michael Collins and other figures? You think there wouldn't be a split in whatever remained of FG after a no-to-UI vote if the likes of Leo metamorphosed into permanent partitionists?

jh79 wrote: »

You're not doing the SF supporters on here any favours. More of a double agent!

So "Project Fear" involves FF/FG sticking to their Republican principles to a great extent than SF did in NI?

Think we'll be ok!

I don't know what people's party politics are, it's trivial. Any chance we could keep the factionalism out of this thread?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oh brilliant, I love this development.

Let's try and mock people to keep partition going.
Promise me you'll bring that out in writing jh79---gamechanger!

Francie, in this case it's appropriate. Politicans adapt. SF have gone further away from their principals than any other.

It's laughable to think FF/FG will..... well nobody knows cause "Project Fear" hasn't revealed that part yet.

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

FG trace their heritage back to the original SF don't they? They claim to be the party of Michael Collins and other figures? You think there wouldn't be a split in whatever remained of FG after a no-to-UI vote if the likes of Leo metamorphosed into permanent partitionists?



I don't know what people's party politics are, it's trivial. Any chance we could keep the factionalism out of this thread?

So what if FG split. Jesus is that it? The world didn't end when Aontu split from SF and likewise Renua.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So FF/FG will still have unification as a pillar of their parties?

Will they still trace their heritage back to the War of Independence?

I explained this all to you pages ago.

There is only an aspiration to a united people on this island, there is no longer an imperative to united the territory.

If the conditions are not right for a united Ireland and people reject it, life will go on pretty much unchanged. People will still yearn and hope for a united Ireland but grounded in reality they will know it is for some time way in the future. There are many other examples around the world, from Macedonia to China, where people wish and hope for a change, but accept the democratic reality that it is not going to change.

jimmycrackcorm

FileNotFound wrote: »

I'd say the average FG member already happily accepts a 26 county Ireland.

I think the vast majority of voters just have a live and let live attitude. It only seems to be a minority in SF that are actually actively looking for a unification poll ASAP.

That means the vast majority happily accepts a 26 county Ireland at present. After all, voting to relinquish our claim on NI, is a firm acknowledgment that we're content to accept a 26 county Ireland.

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, in this case it's appropriate. Politicans adapt. SF have gone further away from their principals than any other.

It's laughable to think FF/FG will..... well nobody knows cause "Project Fear" hasn't revealed that part yet.

"Project Fear" is the old mutterings of a return to violence etc. Pitiful stuff, thinking we still live in the 1960s.

blanch152

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

After all, voting to relinquish our claim on NI, is a firm acknowledgment that we're content to accept a 26 county Ireland.

It is amazing how few republicans seem to able to grasp this simple reality.

FileNotFound

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

FG trace their heritage back to the original SF don't they? They claim to be the party of Michael Collins and other figures? You think there wouldn't be a split in whatever remained of FG after a no-to-UI vote if the likes of Leo metamorphosed into permanent partitionists?



I don't know what people's party politics are, it's trivial. Any chance we could keep the factionalism out of this thread?

They don't just trace, they factually come from. They would not become partitionists by accepting the democratic will of their electorate and the people of ireland. They could even maintain an aim to at some point in the future unite the Island.

A no vote in the Republic would not even need to be the end of a potential UI - but would definitely mean no at the time.

I am not against a UI, just based upon what people present to me as the facts around it I cannot support it at this time.

If someone can present a good case for it, I will listen and might happily support.


What we know now is that a UI carries a lot of cost, NI is far from the progressive place we would all hope and the maintenance of the rivalry up North will have a major swing on the political climate in the case of a UI.

Without anything to put against this a lot of rational voters will happily reject a UI - will it be a majority (maybe but maybe not).


Even you have failed to present a negative side to a No vote (other than updating party minifestos which might not even need updating). And nobody has presented a good case for how a United Ireland would be better.


A UI in my mind is classed the same as Brexit right now - thinking with hearts and not heads.

FileNotFound

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think the vast majority of voters just have a live and let live attitude. It only seems to be a minority in SF that are actually actively looking for a unification poll ASAP.

That means the vast majority happily accepts a 26 county Ireland at present. After all, voting to relinquish our claim on NI, is a firm acknowledgment that we're content to accept a 26 county Ireland.

Its a bloody great place all told, and even here the supporters of a UI haven't given one proper way it will be improved by a Yes vote.


I do think that by the time we actually get to voting a No is a very real possibility - an acceptance of our current state and a rejection of a bile and hatred that is still so strong in NI.

Then there is the actual cost whether people like to accept it or not.

FileNotFound

jh79 wrote: »

So what if FG split. Jesus is that it? The world didn't end when Aontu split from SF and likewise Renua.

They most likely won't

I do think that they will campaign against a UI so there may be some splinter from each party that will eventually create another party down here.


Would a No vote even be a permanent No? Serious question, while in probability it will mean no UI, parties could still aspire to one down the line.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

If the conditions are not right for a united Ireland and people reject it

'Not now' is not the same as 'no'. Make up your mind, you're all over the place.

I didn't realise you and jh79 were an anti-SF double act.

FileNotFound

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'Not now' is not the same as 'no'. Make up your mind, you're all over the place.

That is a good question - assuming the vote is Yes/No - which would be my assumption.


Do we class it as a vote at a moment in time or just a decision not to do it now?


Realistically hard to see a No changing if it went that way but is the possibility open I wonder?

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'Not now' is not the same as 'no'. Make up your mind, you're all over the place.

I didn't realise you and jh79 were an anti-SF double act.

People will only have a chance to vote yes or no on what is before them. If they believe the time is not yet right, they will vote no. Effectively "not now" is a "no" but a "no" is only possibly "not now". We won't know unless things change and there is a second vote after a generation.

Junkyard Tom

FileNotFound wrote: »

That is a good question - assuming the vote is Yes/No - which would be my assumption.

Do we class it as a vote at a moment in time or just a decision not to do it now?

Realistically hard to see a No changing if it went that way but is the possibility open I wonder?

It is a critically important distinction.

If people are saying 'not now' then a vote in the south should be postponed until people are okay with it. If people are saying a cold 'no' then they will have to sell new arrangements post no-to-UI vote.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It is a critically important distinction.

If people are saying 'not now' then a vote in the south should be postponed until people are okay with it. If people are saying a cold 'no' then they will have to sell new arrangements post no-to-UI vote.

How do you know people are saying "not now" unless you have a referendum where the answer is "no"?

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It is a critically important distinction.

If people are saying 'not now' then a vote in the south should be postponed until people are okay with it. If people are saying a cold 'no' then they will have to sell new arrangements post no-to-UI vote.

So back tracking on "Project Fear" already?

Nothing changes and we try again later. Good laugh while it lasted.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you know people are saying "not now" unless you have a referendum where the answer is "no"?

Because *sigh* 'not now' is not the same as 'no'. 'Not now' is essentially 'yes, but with conditions'. No is no.

You're a mess, pull yourself together.

FileNotFound

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It is a critically important distinction.

If people are saying 'not now' then a vote in the south should be postponed until people are okay with it. If people are saying a cold 'no' then they will have to sell new arrangements post no-to-UI vote.

I agree - personally I am basing everything on the current climate so would be a "Not now" voter.

I am not sure anyone is selling a "Never" vote. And even if they are I don't agree they would have to sell anything new as a never would have no real practical impact on the South.

At least none that anyone has been able to name.

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

Nothing changes and we try again later. Good laugh while it lasted.

Hmmm.. I don't think there would be no changes after a pro-UI vote in the north We'd probably enter a sort of holding pattern.

FileNotFound wrote: »

I agree - personally I am basing everything on the current climate so would be a "Not now" voter.

I am not sure anyone is selling a "Never" vote.

Well that kinda divides people into three camps:

1. 'not now' to UI
2. 'yes' to UI
3. 'no' to UI

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because *sigh* 'not now' is not the same as 'no'. 'Not now' is essentially 'yes, but with conditions'. No is no.

You're a mess, pull yourself together.

It was you who said there would be consequences if we voted no!

Did you only realise the distinction since that post?

BonnieSituation

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

We're a long way from those days - might as well try to convince us we should go back to dancing at the crossroads. Now it's more likely that NI will reject unification because soft northern nationalists won't want to lose their NHS.

There's an even bigger risk if the North begins to do better economically from its links to both GB and the EU.

Don't forget their access to Sainsbury's of course.

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

It was you who said there would be consequences if we voted no!

Did you only realise the distinction since that post?

'Not now' is not the same as 'no'. 'Not now' means 'how do we do this'.

BonnieSituation

FileNotFound wrote: »

I'm a republican, and a supporter of democracy. Should a vote to unite give a yes then that will get my full support.

Once the actual discussion starts I can see a No vote actually happening. Either is good by me as it will be a democratic decision.

Sure if someone presents a plan that shows us prosper they will get my full support. Only catch is nobody has done that or seems inclined to yet. Why is that?

Also grammatically speaking are you not now a unionist who wants a union???

We're back to redefining words again I see.

It's not that long ago that Blanch tried this nonsense.

You guys are really cranking out the hits these days.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Don't forget their access to Sainsbury's of course.

What would be your explanation to why 25% of Catholics would vote for remaining in the UK?

BonnieSituation

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think the vast majority of voters just have a live and let live attitude. It only seems to be a minority in SF that are actually actively looking for a unification poll ASAP.

"Seems" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Get off the fence.

That means the vast majority happily accepts a 26 county Ireland at present. After all, voting to relinquish our claim on NI, is a firm acknowledgment that we're content to accept a 26 county Ireland.

Is that how you took it back in 1998?

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'Not now' is not the same as 'no'. 'Not now' means 'how do we do this'.

The ballot only has 2 choices.

You said if the majority reject unification then there would be consequences.

Is the story now that if you found out after the event that they meant "no" in the permanent sense then there would be consequences?

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because *sigh* 'not now' is not the same as 'no'. 'Not now' is essentially 'yes, but with conditions'. No is no.

You're a mess, pull yourself together.

I think you don't understand.

"Not now" voters only have the option of voting "no". Essentially therefore, they are "no" voters.