A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

[andoireabu]

Losers consent is a totally normal concept. Its actually the basis of democracy including 50%+1. Ie, anyone voting in an election is giving losers consent if who/what they vote for doesn't win. I think people are confused when this term has been thrown out there. It's just jargon that's used in political science.
Ps. Examples of elections that do not have losers consent are ones that one side boycotts the election, or says the election is rigged.

So hypothetically if the entire unionist vote boycotted the poll and didn't turn up, would it be considered that there is no loser's consent because there wasn't a winner and a loser, just a winner? Are there any ramifications for the result in this case?

[JPGJOHNNYG]

Lads there will be no supermajority etc etc. As I already pointed out what the big play by unionism  is is that nationalists only get 40% of the vote. Last election was 44 but they will only include SDLP and SF just to be on the safe side. They will happily point out that we are nowhere near 50% +1. They will ignore the others as having any other opinion other than status quo IE Union. Peter Shirlow backed this up and he is big into his polling which is very worrying for someone with such influence to be so bias and one eyed. This is why the Alliance and greens need to be pressured more and more to come clean on their leanings. Even so called nationalist journalists are playing the OWC game ffs. The likes of Brendan Hughes claiming SDLP transfer to unionists more than SF based on one poll and completely against any actual electoral evidence. Alison Morris quoted UI support from a poll at 30% of course when the don't knows are taken out it jumps above 40% even on that dodgy poll but didn't mention it it means the viewer just assumes pro uk is on 70%. Why do they feel the need to manipulate the numbers just like unionists politicians. It's depressing and no-one ever ever challenges any of it.

[andoireabu]

I know that it will be 50%+1 as it should be, I was just interested in the point HiMucker made as I hadn't heard of losers consent before. There isn't a hope in hell of them being allowed a supermajority for this when there wasn't one for brexit

[weareros]

Losers consent is just a term Professor O'Leary threw out. But he clarified when interviewed by Caruthers, it is not a veto. Just that a United Ireland would require concessions to Unionists for it to work, similar to some of the elements GFA offered to Nationalists - so that is essentially right to be considered British, perhaps a continuation of British-Irish council. But that is up to London to agree to that. They might be just glad to see the back of them for good.

[Milltown Row2]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

[armaghniac]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

[seafoid]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

[Milltown Row2]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

It's important that things are in place before anything is called..

Is it 7 years since Scotland had a referendum? Or have they not got the same thing in place?

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

Tough shit. That's the way it is.

[AustinPowers]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

Does anyone  know what they're   really voting for in  any election ?   discussions on  what a new Ireland . might look  like this.......  For example , let's say everyone  knows before a border poll that  VAT will be 10%,  sickness  benefit will be £300 a week and  doctor appts will be  free for everyone. 

We get a United Ireland , and 3 months later  VAT is bumped up to 30% , and  they start charging £50 for each Doctor  appt .  People thought they'd be  better off , and now  we have these price  rises. Can we then say , ah Jesus this new Ireland is s disaster...  people didn't know what they were voting for?  Nothing stays the  same

[RedHand88]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

Going with the 49 minority would be much much more unstable.

[clonadmad]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

50% + 1 in a democratic decision is a majority

What are you suggesting is done instead?

You'd hope that lessons would have been leaned from Brexit and that a UI referendum would be 5 years in the planning

As for this notion that Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for ,that's on them,there were no shortage of information explaining to them what was in the offing if they voted to leave.

[imtommygunn]

Most of that was lies but I agree

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

Going with the 49 minority would be much much more unstable.

Exactly. The 50+1 not being enough is a nonsense.

We are a few years away from it anyway.

[AustinPowers]

Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

50% + 1 in a democratic decision is a majority

What are you suggesting is done instead?

You'd hope that lessons would have been leaned from Brexit and that a UI referendum would be 5 years in the planning

As for this notion that Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for ,that's on them,there were no shortage of information explaining to them what was in the offing if they voted to leave.

One of the things  that  was talked about pre-Brexit was the  possibility of Irish Sea border checks , and big Jeffrey  actually said  sure that wouldn't be a problem if they  had  those.  So ,  a lot of people look to their politicians for  guidance (madness, I know) on such  things before  voting

Do you honestly  think  all cards will be laid out  on the table pre-border poll?  Will all promises  and arrangements  be honoured  after the referendum? Of  course they won't.

[Milltown Row2]

This will keep those that are sitting on the fence to stay with the status quo

The devil is in the detail and every argument from the unionists needs to be met with a detailed answer showing the benefits

If the only negative is being part of an United Ireland then that's fine, you can't blame them for it, but we'll not get 50+1 unless they can convince a percentage of those voters who aren't sure.

Population swings are great, it's not a cert though