Brexit.

Started by T Fearon, November 01, 2015, 06:04:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sid waddell

Quote from: BennyCake on December 13, 2018, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 03:38:02 PM
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

These opinion polls - explain what they involve or how they are done.

To me, this thing about not being a border poll until it's clear that the majority of the north are in favour of a UI, how does anyone know for sure? The only way to find out for sure is to actually have a proper border poll.

The British govt/unionists and even Dublin, who don't want a UI, will continue to say 'ah no, there's not enough support for it yet, so no border poll yet '

It's a cop out.

Opinion polls are polls that are used to predict the outcome of electoral contests the world over, and which, contrary to the belief of some tinfoil hat merchants, usually give us a very good idea of the outcome of such electoral contests.

I'm not involved in an opinion polling company, so I can't explain exactly how opinion pollsters select the people they poll.

However, I generally do trust polls to give us a pretty good idea of how public opinion lies as regards electoral contests.

red hander

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed

BennyCake

Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed

So if there a border poll, and 50%+1 vote for a united ireland, will the brits ignore it again if loyalists threaten violence? The Dublin cowboys might choose to ignore the result as well.

So even if the vote for a UI wins, I wouldn't be confident it will actually happen. The two shower of pricks in London and Dublin have history in ignoring results or having another go at voting.

sid waddell

Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

sid waddell

Quote from: BennyCake on December 13, 2018, 06:37:49 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed

So if there a border poll, and 50%+1 vote for a united ireland, will the brits ignore it again if loyalists threaten violence? The Dublin cowboys might choose to ignore the result as well.

So even if the vote for a UI wins, I wouldn't be confident it will actually happen. The two shower of pricks in London and Dublin have history in ignoring results or having another go at voting.

I think you've just described why such a vote shouldn't happen until a majority for unification is clear and unassailable.


dec

Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.

Main Street

The irony of it, corrupt fckers.

A European conservative group co-founded by the Tories and led by Brexit campaigner and MEP Daniel Hannan has been asked to repay more than half a million euros of EU funds following an investigation into their spending, the Guardian has learned.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/13/daniel-hannan-mep-group-told-to-repay-half-a-million-in-eu-funds

sid waddell

Quote from: dec on December 13, 2018, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.
It may well do.

But on actual votes, they didn't have a majority.

Had those seats been contested, it's unlikely they would have got much more than 55% of the total vote, if even that.

It was was claimed by another poster that they had a "supermajority".

A "supermajority" is a very nebulous concept.

55% would certainly have been a decent majority, but I think by any definition of what a "supermajority" is, 55% isn't it.

In my imagination a "supermajority" would be two-thirds of the vote plus one, or at minimum the 60% that the US Senate classes as a "supermajority".






seafoid

Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:34:49 PM
Quote from: dec on December 13, 2018, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.
It may well do.

But on actual votes, they didn't have a majority.

Had those seats been contested, it's unlikely they would have got much more than 55% of the total vote, if even that.

It was was claimed by another poster that they had a "supermajority".

A "supermajority" is a very nebulous concept.

55% would certainly have been a decent majority, but I think by any definition of what a "supermajority" is, 55% isn't it.

In my imagination a "supermajority" would be two-thirds of the vote plus one, or at minimum the 60% that the US Senate classes as a "supermajority".

Even in a UI Antrim and Down would never be like Tipp and Cork
There is always going to be some sort of sharing.
NI is too unstable otherwise

It will be interesting to see what the Brexit fallout for the DUP will be. The party has been publicly humiliated.
The Euros walked all over May. She asked for her red lines and they gave them back to her, good and hard. The DUP are wasting their time asking for concessions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzHmXaUSL6o
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

red hander

Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:34:49 PM
Quote from: dec on December 13, 2018, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.
It may well do.

But on actual votes, they didn't have a majority.

Had those seats been contested, it's unlikely they would have got much more than 55% of the total vote, if even that.

It was was claimed by another poster that they had a "supermajority".

A "supermajority" is a very nebulous concept.

55% would certainly have been a decent majority, but I think by any definition of what a "supermajority" is, 55% isn't it.

In my imagination a "supermajority" would be two-thirds of the vote plus one, or at minimum the 60% that the US Senate classes as a "supermajority".

You are talking about votes for parties. This would be a referendum. A supermajority would mean that the vote of an individual unionist who voted against UI would mean more than the vote of an individual nationalist who backed UI. What happened to one person, one vote? Unionists have ridden roughshod over the concept of democracy in Ireland for long enough, Those days are over.

naka

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 03:38:02 PM
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

I usually completely disagree with sid and find him a contrary c**t at the best of times, but he's not far wrong here.

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.
(2) A UI should only happen after a meaningful (legal) framework is put in place to protect the culture and history of all as much as is practical (and without threatening others).
(3) A UI should only happen if any economic shock can be mitigated to manageable levels.
Catch yourself on
It's 50% plus 1.
Why should nationalist votes be worth less than unionist votes

sid waddell

Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 08:57:14 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:34:49 PM
Quote from: dec on December 13, 2018, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.
It may well do.

But on actual votes, they didn't have a majority.

Had those seats been contested, it's unlikely they would have got much more than 55% of the total vote, if even that.

It was was claimed by another poster that they had a "supermajority".

A "supermajority" is a very nebulous concept.

55% would certainly have been a decent majority, but I think by any definition of what a "supermajority" is, 55% isn't it.

In my imagination a "supermajority" would be two-thirds of the vote plus one, or at minimum the 60% that the US Senate classes as a "supermajority".

You are talking about votes for parties. This would be a referendum. A supermajority would mean that the vote of an individual unionist who voted against UI would mean more than the vote of an individual nationalist who backed UI. What happened to one person, one vote? Unionists have ridden roughshod over the concept of democracy in Ireland for long enough, Those days are over.
I was directly addressing the pont you made in post #5741.

You stated that there was a supermajority in favour of an independent Irish state in 1918.

There wasn't, unless you adopt a definition of the word that is ludicrous.


Franko

Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 03:38:02 PM
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

In practical terms, can you outline for me why a 51-49 result would result in bloodshed/carnage and a 55-45 result wouldn't?

At what point in between do unionists change from being hell bent on carnage to deciding they'll just have to accept it?

Franko

Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 09:11:17 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 08:57:14 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:34:49 PM
Quote from: dec on December 13, 2018, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.
It may well do.

But on actual votes, they didn't have a majority.

Had those seats been contested, it's unlikely they would have got much more than 55% of the total vote, if even that.

It was was claimed by another poster that they had a "supermajority".

A "supermajority" is a very nebulous concept.

55% would certainly have been a decent majority, but I think by any definition of what a "supermajority" is, 55% isn't it.

In my imagination a "supermajority" would be two-thirds of the vote plus one, or at minimum the 60% that the US Senate classes as a "supermajority".

You are talking about votes for parties. This would be a referendum. A supermajority would mean that the vote of an individual unionist who voted against UI would mean more than the vote of an individual nationalist who backed UI. What happened to one person, one vote? Unionists have ridden roughshod over the concept of democracy in Ireland for long enough, Those days are over.
I was directly addressing the pont you made in post #5741.

You stated that there was a supermajority in favour of an independent Irish state in 1918.

There wasn't, unless you adopt a definition of the word that is ludicrous.

One single party won almost 70% of the seats.  That's a supermajority.  End of story.

You can play about with numbers of votes cast till the cows come home.

The only reason the popular vote didn't match these figures was due to the 25 seats SF took unopposed.  If you want to be taken seriously, stop playing silly beggars.

Franko

Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:34:49 PM
Quote from: dec on December 13, 2018, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 13, 2018, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 13, 2018, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2018, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 13, 2018, 04:26:58 PM

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.
It may well do.

But on actual votes, they didn't have a majority.

Had those seats been contested, it's unlikely they would have got much more than 55% of the total vote, if even that.

It was was claimed by another poster that they had a "supermajority".

A "supermajority" is a very nebulous concept.

55% would certainly have been a decent majority, but I think by any definition of what a "supermajority" is, 55% isn't it.

In my imagination a "supermajority" would be two-thirds of the vote plus one, or at minimum the 60% that the US Senate classes as a "supermajority".

Gonna need some evidence for this one I'm afraid.

Otherwise, well, you know that whole thing about opinions and arseholes...