Author Topic: Brexit.  (Read 585380 times)

dec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5745 on: December 13, 2018, 08:22:10 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11757
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5746 on: December 13, 2018, 08:28:15 PM »
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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5747 on: December 13, 2018, 08:34:49 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23644
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5748 on: December 13, 2018, 08:50:58 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
Lookit

red hander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Masters of the dark arts since 1996
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5749 on: December 13, 2018, 08:57:14 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5750 on: December 13, 2018, 09:03:11 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5751 on: December 13, 2018, 09:11:17 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5752 on: December 13, 2018, 09:13:13 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5753 on: December 13, 2018, 09:20:27 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5754 on: December 13, 2018, 09:23:52 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...

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5755 on: December 13, 2018, 09:38:23 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?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.

The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.







Franko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5756 on: December 13, 2018, 09:52:02 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?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.


The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.

Agree with bold.  Though, as some earlier posters mentioned, I think it does no harm to mention it from time to time, to 'normalise' it.

As for the figure, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference what the majority is (certainly within the limits we are discussing).

So I think we have to accept that 51-49 or 55-45 (or 60-40 for that matter), there will still be a cabal of uber-staunch reprobates who will cause bother when it doesn't go their way.

We can't be beholden to them though.


EDIT.

Just re-read your post there and realised that the only half attempt at an answer to my questions could be boiled down to 'cos I think so'.

The rest is nothing more than a bunch of very noble platitudes and regurgitations of old chestnuts about respect etc...
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 10:03:19 PM by Franko »

Franko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5757 on: December 13, 2018, 10:06:00 PM »
Also, we're absolutely derailing the Brexit thread here... so may I suggest further discussion be carried out on one of the myriad of threads on the National Question?

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5758 on: December 13, 2018, 11:43:36 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?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.


The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.

Agree with bold.  Though, as some earlier posters mentioned, I think it does no harm to mention it from time to time, to 'normalise' it.

As for the figure, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference what the majority is (certainly within the limits we are discussing).

So I think we have to accept that 51-49 or 55-45 (or 60-40 for that matter), there will still be a cabal of uber-staunch reprobates who will cause bother when it doesn't go their way.

We can't be beholden to them though.


EDIT.

Just re-read your post there and realised that the only half attempt at an answer to my questions could be boiled down to 'cos I think so'.

The rest is nothing more than a bunch of very noble platitudes and regurgitations of old chestnuts about respect etc...
There's every reason to think the way I do.

The only reason you wouldn't is if you buy into the old misty-eyed romantic nationalist bullshit, ie. a united Ireland any which way and to hell with the consequences.

If opinion polls put the numbers in favour/not in favour of unification at basically 50-50, and the result was on a knife edge, the division and hatred that would be stoked up by a referendum would be nightmarish. There would likely be violence before, during and after the poll.

It would be utterly irresponsible to hold a poll which would be a carte blanche for the headbangers to cause violent mayhem.

If you had a period of, say, two years where opinion polls were consistently showing 55-45 or more in favour of unification, a border poll would become inevitable because of the clear and consistent majority in favour, the result wouldd become inevitable, and the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community would at least have time to come to terms with what was happening.

Time, acceptance and respect are the keys to unification ever happening.

There may well be some Loyalists who would still be intent on violence with a 55-45 result for unification, or 60-40, or an even greater margin. It could be that no margin, no matter how big, would make certian people accept that being taken out of the United Kingdom in a referendum was legitimate. But the greater the margin, the less would be the legitimacy of any violence in the eyes of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community as a whole. I think that's unarguable.

I'd like to see unification but I'd be more than prepared to wait an extra 30 or 40 years for it to happen if it meant there was a better chance that people wouldn't be killed.

Here's another thing. When people voted for Brexit they didn't know what they were voting for. Those who would vote for a united Ireland might think they would know what they would be voting for. But would they?

Because there would be those who would expect all the trappings and official culture of the 26 county state to be immediately extended to the six counties - the tricolour to fly over City Hall in Belfast etc., that unionist culture be basically be obliterated. That we'd "stick it to them once and for all".

Then, there would be those, like myself, who would be prepared to see a united Ireland as being effectively the creation of new state rather than it merely being a case of the six counties being subsumed into the Republic. A new state with a new flag and a new anthem etc., with Britain having some say over the six counties in a similar way to how the Republic has some say over the North now.

There would be hard united Irelanders and soft united Irelanders. The hard united Irelanders mightn't particularly like the ideas of the soft united Irelanders, never mind the ideas of those who opposed a united Ireland. The united Ireland that occurred in practice would likely not be the united Ireland they imagined.








« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 11:53:00 PM by sid waddell »

screenexile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10686
  • Up The Screen!
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit.
« Reply #5759 on: December 13, 2018, 11:48:53 PM »
Good job that no confidence vote wasn’t tomorrow or Monday!

Terrsa’s completely blown it in Brussels!! She seems to have asked them to look at the backstop and they’ve said they can’t but what else can we do for you and she hasn’t a clue so they’ve just told the world as much!!

The only upside is maybe we’ll get the people’s vote. I don’t think remain will be as complacent again!!