Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

I don't pay much attention to the complaining of unionist and they have hardly shown themselves to be politically competent but i can see from the poll of poll there is no trending towards unity. It's stagnated. SF are getting better at partition but that's all. Unity is no further forward. Just a blip when there was a risk of a hard Brexit.

I don't see that much change in media coverage. I wouldn't count the lobby groups as that's their job. Ireland's Future didn't exactly set the world alight anyways.

There is nothing to see. You have no evidence that there is momentum. SF success isn't a measure because they tactically decided to avoid the subject because it was damaging. Since Brexit was announced there has been lots of talk about unity in the media but it hasn't changed anything and the polls certainly don't support your claims.

For those who don't like democracy I suppose it offers a challenge, if a border poll is called..

If you think it stupid you are free to use your vote to express that.

You still talking about the referendum in N.I.? You did not like democracy then, it was free and fair referendum, and despite pira threat of bombings ( they did not like democracy) the majority of the adults in N.Ireland came out and voted to stay in the UK. Not just the majority of the voters, the majority of the electorate voted to stay in the UK rather than a U.I.

You say there was no alternative to the pira : most others believe in democracy.

It is funny how democracy allows that referendum to be revisited again, but democracy can't envisage needing two referenda for a united Ireland, one for the principle and the second for the details. Democracy rejects that approach.

It is a strange thing, this democracy lark.

Democracy may require two or 50 referendums.

IMO it only requires one for a UI.

If in years to come, somebody musters a groundswell of support to do something else then by all means, let the people decide.

The people decided on the GFA and what happens if there is a majority. If you think you can muster the support to change that agreement, go ahead.

Trouble with polls...they change all the time and are affected by events.

You wish.

Win the referendum before there is a plan, campaign and referendum? 😀😀😀

Never heard such fearful ridiculousness in my many years on boards.

Scotland got it's referendum when support was hovering around the low 30's.

I expect the same will happen here as the momentum grows.

Nobody is going to change the GFA just because you or unionists are getting sweaty about it.

Nobody is going to legislate for a super majority either.

All I can say is you have some neck criticising my input in the Drivetime programme.

And don’t come up with the different circumstances argument, you have been flogging this ‘border poll’ here solidly for the last four hours.

We get it!

All the fearful attempts to stave off democracy will fall on deaf ears...super-majorities, losers consent, re-partition, multiple referendums etc etc.

If the British have learned one thing since the Anglo Irish Agreement, it is that ensuring democracy is the answer to the Irish question for them. Unionist vetos are finished.

I think the idea that a large majority is more desirable is flawed. If we ever have a UI and a small minority willing to resort to violence, say 1%, then it doesn't really matter if there is a 50+1 majority or 80% majority. The minority would still resort to violence.

I don't think we can allow the threat of violence to defeat democracy, though, can we? If NI votes by a majority to join the republic, then we must face down any loyalist terrorists, even if they pretend to be "moderate unionists" and some deluded idiots pretend to believe them.

I take the point that a 50%+1 majority of those voting would make a united Ireland very difficult, but I think we have to accept that it would make NI continuing in the union impossible. Neither the international community nor the British people (as in, people from actual Britain) would tolerate this for an instant. If there's a 50%+1 majority then it's not a matter of if, but when and how. That has been clear for 50 years, and explicitly agreed and enshrined in international and UK law for 25 years.

There would be few if any advantages to a UI, but a lot of risks. Yes, if NI voted by a majority to join the republic, then we must face down any loyalist terrorists - but the last time there was a referendum, NI voted - by a majority of the electorate, not just the voters - to stay in the UK, and the security forces of a G7 country tried to face down Republican terrorists, but that did not end well, did it? A few decades of violence? Could the Gardai sustain same? Doubtful.

Cannot see most people voting for that risk anyway, or for the risk of Socialist Republic either.

If your analysis of Ireland is that it's a "socialist republic", I begin to understand why your analysis of NI is so much at variance from reality.

I don't get the logic. 51% Yes that leads to a UI = chaos; and and yet designing a border poll to ensure 51% Yes can't lead to a UI = what? Everything being hunky dory?

Ideally, a Yes vote would carry at least 55%, but if it falls short of that and still has a majority then that is what must happen. That's democracy. There can't be a scenario where unionists go into an election needing to hit a lower threshold than nationalists in order to get what they want. That effectively would give unionist votes more power than a nationalist vote, and for obvious historic reasons would be a non-starter.

Everyone will go into a constitutional referendum knowing the rules: the majority of votes wins. Just like Scotland in 2014.