A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

[sid waddell]

What happens if NI does vote for unification?

Should there then be an agreement that there should be provision for more subsequent border polls where NI could vote to revert to being in the UK?

This would be democracy, yes?

I ask this because if a border poll in NI went the way of the status quo, you can be sure that SF would be agitating for another one before too long

So why should nationalists get another go, a Mulligan, if they lose, but not unionists?

[Windmill abu]

If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.

Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.

Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for

What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.

OK, but pretty much all evidence shows that a significant democratic majority in NI wants to remain in the UK

So, isn't constant agitation for a border poll which will inevitably lose "pandering to a minority"?

I am not agitating for a border poll. But when it does happen, if the majority vote for a U.I then their wishes should be observed with no minority veto. Same if the majority vote to stay within the U.K.

[dublin7]

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled?

That's what's written in the GFA. Did you vote for the Agreement yourself? Did you miss that bit? It's a legally binding international agreement. If a simple majority votes for reunification, then there will be reunification. It's called democracy.

I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal.

Airy fairy, pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Like a Miss Universe being asked what she wants most: "world peace!". On what planet do you live that you think unionists are going to just stop being unionist, or nationalists all suddenly turn unionist? You're never going to get a consensus on the constitutional situation here. All you can do is aim for a reunited Ireland and try to make it as welcoming and inclusive as possible for unionism, because, so as long as a simple majority is enough of a democratic mandate for remaining in the uk, then it is also a sufficient mandate for reunification. And the demographic and political trends all point to that happening. Democracy.


I'm really struggling to understand what you are arguing for. You want there to be a consensus in any future settlement. That implies that if unionism is to be 'converted', they have to be sold a good vision of what reunification would entail. If that's what you are arguing needs to happen, then why on earth would you also argue that the Irish Government shouldn't try to do that very thing because it might upset unionism. FFS make up your mind.

Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes). The key should be to try to reach the best scenario to keep the most people what they want to make any transition easier. You might not realise this but there are a significant amount of people who think the exact opposite to you in terms of a united Ireland and while SF/IRA went down the paramilitary road to try force the english  out if your no holds barred, end of story approach is adopted it will only alienate a large section of society and lead to a re-emergence of unionist paramilitaries in defiance of the what they will see at the denial of their heritage/nationalism.

The Irish government can't decide on a referendum as they have no say in it. Why can't you understand this. It's up to the UK to decide.

[sid waddell]

If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.

Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.

Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for

What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.

OK, but pretty much all evidence shows that a significant democratic majority in NI wants to remain in the UK

So, isn't constant agitation for a border poll which will inevitably lose "pandering to a minority"?

I am not agitating for a border poll. But when it does happen, if the majority vote for a U.I then their wishes should be observed with no minority veto. Same if the majority vote to stay within the U.K.

OK, that's fair enough and is provided for in the GFA

The question then would be - is any hypothetical border poll a one time deal?

Is the result of it set in stone forever, or at least for many decades?

If a vote for unification occurred, what happens then if unionists start  to outbreed nationalists and the balance tips back in favour of NI being part of the UK?

Do the unionists get another go at winning a border poll some time down the road if they lose the first one - or is that right reserved for nationalists - who would, as sure as night follows day, be demanding another border poll not that far down the tracks if they lost the first one

[dublin7]

If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.

Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.

Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for

What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.

OK, but pretty much all evidence shows that a significant democratic majority in NI wants to remain in the UK

So, isn't constant agitation for a border poll which will inevitably lose "pandering to a minority"?

I am not agitating for a border poll. But when it does happen, if the majority vote for a U.I then their wishes should be observed with no minority veto. Same if the majority vote to stay within the U.K.

OK, that's fair enough and is provided for in the GFA

The question then would be - is any hypothetical border poll a one time deal?

Is the result of it set in stone forever, or at least for many decades?

If a vote for unification occurred, what happens then if unionists start  to outbreed nationalists and the balance tips back in favour of NI being part of the UK?

Do the unionists get another go at winning a border poll some time down the road if they lose the first one - or is that right reserved for nationalists - who would, as sure as night follows day, be demanding another border poll not that far down the tracks if they lost the first one

The Scottish independence referendum is a good example. As it was such a close vote it achieved nothing and was worst of both worlds. It means leavers are demanding another referendum as it was so close and claiming the closeness of the vote isn't a real mandate to remain part of the UK. The remainers argument the people want to stay is weak one as so many wanted to leave.

If a border poll is called as SF insist and they lose, that would give the UK the right to refuse to call another one for decades as that's what the people have decided. This doesn't seem to be something SF supporters have considered or do they think these polls should be every couple of years until they get the result they want?

[bennydorano]

That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.

But it's the Shinners here who do that

And it hasn't gone well for yis

Just look at how yis reacted when yis tried to get all moral over Varadkar

Yis lost the plot completely when your hypocrisy was pointed out, and made fools of yerselves

Fraud is the operative word

That is what Sinn Fein is

Here are my principles and if you don't like them... well I have others.

Angelo really has done a number on you and a service for the rest of us. Exposed as the fraud you are, must sting.

[Rossfan]

Of the many Countries (60 or 70?) that got out of the British clutches NONE have asked to go back under their control.
Larnaparka raises an interesting point....what happens if we vite NO?

[sid waddell]

That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.

But it's the Shinners here who do that

And it hasn't gone well for yis

Just look at how yis reacted when yis tried to get all moral over Varadkar

Yis lost the plot completely when your hypocrisy was pointed out, and made fools of yerselves

Fraud is the operative word

That is what Sinn Fein is

Here are my principles and if you don't like them... well I have others.

Angelo really has done a number on you and a service for the rest of us. Exposed as the fraud you are, must sting.

Changing your opinions when you realise they're wrong is what a sensible, rational person does

It's a sign of growth as a person and an ability to think

You and Angelo clearly still haven't realised that

It's why you're both so consistently wrong about things on this forum and end up consistently defending ludicrous positions

And why your debating "strategies" are so reminiscent of four year old children

[Snapchap]

Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes).

Of course there will be people who don't accept it, Captain Obvious, but we have a Good Friday Agreement. It's set in stone. If 50%+1 vote for unity in a border poll, like it or lump it, that's what is going to happen. You position seems now to be that the majority of people should be held captive to the will of the minority. Is that your idea of democracy? And the fact that most people in the north have endorse the GFA, means they have already consented to accepting the results of any border poll.

The key should be to try to reach the best scenario to keep the most people what they want to make any transition easier.

So what you're saying is that a bit of planning needs to be done before a poll should happen? Isn't that precisely what I and SF have been saying the Irish Government ought to be doing, given the absolute inevitability of a poll in the relatively near future? Yet when it's put to you that the Irish government should be doing that planning, you get your knickers in a twist that doing so would only upset unionists. Again, you can't have it both ways.

You might not realise this but there are a significant amount of people who think the exact opposite to you in terms of a united Ireland

Thank God to have someone from Dublin here to inform me, who has lived in the north his entire life, that there are actually some people in the north don't want reunification 

and while SF/IRA went down the paramilitary road to try force the english  out if your no holds barred, end of story approach is adopted it will only alienate a large section of society and lead to a re-emergence of unionist paramilitaries in defiance of the what they will see at the denial of their heritage/nationalism.

I'll brush past your "SF/IRA" line (your mask is slipping there, Jim Allister), I must remind you, yet again, that unionism signed up to the GFA too. That means a majority of the population of the north have agreed on the provision that a simple majority vote is enough. It's not for you to tell the people of the north, who endorsed that Agreement, that they should not be allowed to see it enacted because you think their endorsement of the simple majority provision might waver, post-poll.

The Irish government can't decide on a referendum as they have no say in it. Why can't you understand this. It's up to the UK to decide.

So if the Irish Government has no say over exactly when a poll will happen (and only knows, like the rest of us, that it will happen relatively soon), then wouldn't that make you think the imperative to be prepared for it only increases?

[sid waddell]

Of the many Countries (60 or 70?) that got out of the British clutches NONE have asked to go back under their control.
Larnaparka raises an interesting point....what happens if we vite NO?

But in all but one case, Ireland, none of these countries were ever part of the United Kingdom itself

In no case did any of these places have a knife edge balance where around half the population was desperate to remain under British control

When NI was created, there was a hefty Protestant/Unionist majority

That changed largely because Catholics/Nationalists started outbreeding Protestants/Unionists

So, in a hypothetical situation where a border poll went the way of unification by 50.1% to 49.9%, what happens then if Protestants/Unionists start outbreeding Catholics/Nationalists and within a short time have tipped the balance back the other way

If Hong Kong held a referendum on whether it wanted to go back under British control now, it would be interesting to see which way it would go

[sid waddell]

Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes).

Of course there will be people who don't accept it, Captain Obvious, but we have a Good Friday Agreement. It's set in stone. If 50%+1 vote for unity in a border poll, like it or lump it, that's what is going to happen. You position seems now to be that the majority of people should be held captive to the will of the minority. Is that your idea of democracy?

And what happens if 50% + 1 vote decide to remain in the UK

Is that set in stone?

Forever?

Yes?

[Snapchap]

The Scottish independence referendum is a good example. As it was such a close vote it achieved nothing and was worst of both worlds. It means leavers are demanding another referendum as it was so close and claiming the closeness of the vote isn't a real mandate to remain part of the UK. The remainers argument the people want to stay is weak one as so many wanted to leave.

If a border poll is called as SF insist and they lose, that would give the UK the right to refuse to call another one for decades as that's what the people have decided. This doesn't seem to be something SF supporters have considered or do they think these polls should be every couple of years until they get the result they want?

Every couple of years? Have you read any of the GFA at all? If a poll is lost narrowly, then another poll cannot be held for at least 7 years. Now consider that the British Sec of State, according the the GFA, can only call one when it appears "likely to him/her" that a poll will actually result in Irish unity. So then, if it appears likely that a majority will vote for reunification, that then means it will be the likeliest outcome of the poll, so by definition, it will be unlikely that another order poll will even be required.
If the pro-unity vote loses narrowly, then once the required minimum 7 years has passed, and demographics have shifted even further towards an increase in support for reunification, then another border poll will inevitably have to happen again.

[Snapchap]

Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes).

Of course there will be people who don't accept it, Captain Obvious, but we have a Good Friday Agreement. It's set in stone. If 50%+1 vote for unity in a border poll, like it or lump it, that's what is going to happen. You position seems now to be that the majority of people should be held captive to the will of the minority. Is that your idea of democracy?

And what happens if 50% + 1 vote decide to remain in the UK

Is that set in stone?

Forever?

Yes?

You accused me of being "into dead children". Stop trying to engage with me.

[sid waddell]

The Scottish independence referendum is a good example. As it was such a close vote it achieved nothing and was worst of both worlds. It means leavers are demanding another referendum as it was so close and claiming the closeness of the vote isn't a real mandate to remain part of the UK. The remainers argument the people want to stay is weak one as so many wanted to leave.

If a border poll is called as SF insist and they lose, that would give the UK the right to refuse to call another one for decades as that's what the people have decided. This doesn't seem to be something SF supporters have considered or do they think these polls should be every couple of years until they get the result they want?

Every couple of years? Have you read any of the GFA at all? If a poll is lost narrowly, then another poll cannot be held for at least 7 years. Now consider that the British Sec of State, according the the GFA, can only call one when it appears "likely to him/her" that a poll will actually result in Irish unity. So then, if it appears likely that a majority will vote for reunification, that then means it will be the likeliest outcome of the poll, so by definition, it will be unlikely that another order poll will even be required.
If the pro-unity vote loses narrowly, then once the required minimum 7 years has passed, and demographics have shifted even further towards an increase in support for reunification, then another border poll will inevitably have to happen again.

But what if, after a very narrow unification vote, the balance tips back at some point in the future?

Say if a united Ireland proves a disaster, mass unemployment and destruction of the NHS results from it, and people in NI say "f**k this for a game of soldiers, let's rejoin the UK"

Why should Unionists not get another go at winning after losing the first poll, if nationalists are to "get another go" if they lose?

Would you support the provision in any unification agreement that NI should be able to vote to rejoin the UK if it so wished, or vote to secede?

Any rejection of such would be anti-democratic, surely?

[sid waddell]

Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes).

Of course there will be people who don't accept it, Captain Obvious, but we have a Good Friday Agreement. It's set in stone. If 50%+1 vote for unity in a border poll, like it or lump it, that's what is going to happen. You position seems now to be that the majority of people should be held captive to the will of the minority. Is that your idea of democracy?

And what happens if 50% + 1 vote decide to remain in the UK

Is that set in stone?

Forever?

Yes?

You accused me of being "into dead children". Stop trying to engage with me.

You've accused me of being sub-human and a "sick f**k"

You should be thankful that I'm so polite as to still be willing to engage with you despite your despicable behaviour

I think it shows great tolerance on my part