I'm happy the way things are but I'd rather my scenario than a Union with the UK.
"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement
- Thread starter Thirsty
- Start date
@Purple I detect a tone of sarcasm! 
I'm of a generation that was brought up to believe that there would never be,
...peace in N Ireland
...Governments would never talk to terrorists
...SF would never get into government
...Unionists would never share power with SF
...IRA would never give up its arms
...Ian Paisley certainly would never share power
...there would never be an Irish Sea border
(ok, that last one came belatedly)
Its probably why I buy bitcoin.
I'm of a generation that was brought up to believe that there would never be,
...peace in N Ireland
...Governments would never talk to terrorists
...SF would never get into government
...Unionists would never share power with SF
...IRA would never give up its arms
...Ian Paisley certainly would never share power
...there would never be an Irish Sea border
(ok, that last one came belatedly)
Its probably why I buy bitcoin.
I think the EU is a walking dinosaur. I do not agree much with Boris Johnson but I agree that it is a noble idea whose time has passed.
For sure, there are many good things about the EU and it will limp on, probably for 50 to 100yrs longer than is required.
The principles of free movement and free trade across the continent are established. The ECJ is invaluable, but after that, let sovereign states decide their own fate.
It has one shot at rejuvenation, a federal Europe. Likely to pushed in the coming years by political elites as conformity to international corporate tax rates, trade agreements, takes further hold. The politicians will certainly push for it. Whether the people will accept it is another thing. I would not be confident of that.
Maybe the EU got too ambitious in reach, but there's definitely an eternal role for the trading bloc. When will it ever be in Ireland's interest to be all alone in the world?, have to go crawling back into a UK for instance - can't see it. Same for many countries in Europe.
Hang on now, there would be no 'crawling back' to the UK. I'm simply talking about pooling sovereignty in a partnership of equals. We've being doing it for the last 40yrs with UK as part of the EU. How inconscionable would it be to do it again?
Obviously the terms, crossing the t's dotting the i's etc would be protracted and complicated.
But if it were to open the door to making redundant the centuries old divisions on this (these) islands it would at least be worth exploring.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
Indeed and widening the net:@Purple I detect a tone of sarcasm!
I'm of a generation that was brought up to believe that there would never be,
...peace in N Ireland
...Governments would never talk to terrorists
...SF would never get into government
...Unionists would never share power with SF
...IRA would never give up its arms
...Ian Paisley certainly would never share power
...there would never be an Irish Sea border
(ok, that last one came belatedly)
Its probably why I buy bitcoin.
A black man would become presie of the US
Followed by a deranged egotist
A clown would become prime minister of the UK ruling alongside Carrie Antoinette
A gay indian would become TeaShop
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
Arlene leaving DUP coz she doesn’t like their direction. That is a nice piece of revenge and I think it will hurt the DUP. Very good chance they will lose next year’s election. If the loyalists don’t like the protocol how will they cope with a SF First Minister?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
35 pc in NI in favour of UI. Unless there is some momentous game changer it looks like it will be at least 100 years before the Secretary of State would think it "likely" that a border poll would be positive for a UI.
"Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. "
If I were that SoS, that's not how I would interpret that poll.
I would exclude the don't knows. In which case, out of 100 eligible votes, 79 votes were cast and 35 voted for a UI.
That is 44%.
I would interpret that as being within a reasonable margin to appear likely to me that a majority could vote for a UI.
That in the circumstances of the strong majority in South, and in consideration of constitutional framework of what a UI would entail, that therefore, it appears likely to me that a majority would vote for a UI and that the only way to find out for certain is to hold a referendum.
But only if I was that SoS.
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. "
If I were that SoS, that's not how I would interpret that poll.
I would exclude the don't knows. In which case, out of 100 eligible votes, 79 votes were cast and 35 voted for a UI.
That is 44%.
I would interpret that as being within a reasonable margin to appear likely to me that a majority could vote for a UI.
That in the circumstances of the strong majority in South, and in consideration of constitutional framework of what a UI would entail, that therefore, it appears likely to me that a majority would vote for a UI and that the only way to find out for certain is to hold a referendum.
But only if I was that SoS.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
Nice try @WolfeTone. I take your point on the "don't knows". But the following are synonyms for "likely" (Google it).
Probable
To be expected
Odds-on
As a betting man myself I like the expression "odds-on". Now 44% opinion poll of those who expressed an a opinion is some distance away from meeting any of these definitions.
Probable
To be expected
Odds-on
As a betting man myself I like the expression "odds-on". Now 44% opinion poll of those who expressed an a opinion is some distance away from meeting any of these definitions.
Indeed, but the SoS is not bound by any of those definitions. The SoS has a blank cheque to interpret and define "appears likely to him".
Obviously, the political argument would have to be made and to be reasonably convincing to avoid a Unionist backlash.
But that is where discussions around what a UI would look like come into the frame.
If such discussions, over a period of time, had Unionists concerns - primarily British identity and 'loyalty' to the Crown (I don't think fear of Rome Rule is still a plausible concern anymore?) at front and centre. If similar polls continued on trend, hovering on 45%+ mark, then it would not be beyond reason for a SoS to deduce that in the course of a referendum campaign such a gap is not insurmountable.
Of course, a lot of fences to jump in all of that but in politics anything can happen.
The most interesting part of that poll for me is the 2/3% vote of Unionist / Loyalist that are strongly in favour or somewhat agree in an UI.
The scope for increasing that figure through open dialogue of a future constitutional arrangement is huge in my opinion.
In any open dialogue, Unionists can either participate or ignore it, but if that figure were to ever increase, even marginally, then NI's days may be numbered.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
@WolfeTone
"Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. "
The key word is highlighted (by me) in red. Now if it was "could" instead of "would" one could just about stretch the SoS flexibility on the word "likely". Certainly not to the point where 44% would indicate "likely" but possibly if the opinion polls were showing 50/50 s/he might just be persuaded that it is "likely" that they "could" vote for NI. IMHO it would need to be about 55/45 in favour to justify "likely" that they "would". It would be one not for the constitutional lawyers but the professors of the English language.
Anyway, despite all the republican bombast to the contrary the swing toward a vote for UI has been glacial, marked in 1% per decade terms (like climate change). I give it 100 years to move from 44% to 55%.
"Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. "
The key word is highlighted (by me) in red. Now if it was "could" instead of "would" one could just about stretch the SoS flexibility on the word "likely". Certainly not to the point where 44% would indicate "likely" but possibly if the opinion polls were showing 50/50 s/he might just be persuaded that it is "likely" that they "could" vote for NI. IMHO it would need to be about 55/45 in favour to justify "likely" that they "would". It would be one not for the constitutional lawyers but the professors of the English language.
Anyway, despite all the republican bombast to the contrary the swing toward a vote for UI has been glacial, marked in 1% per decade terms (like climate change). I give it 100 years to move from 44% to 55%.
Taking out the 'Don't knows' the vote for a UI in this jurisdiction is a whopping 80%.
Considering the populations and applying a 3:1 ratio of voter proportion South: North, I estimate that in the entirety of the whole island some 71% would vote for a UI.
The "now is not the right time" brigade have had their way for far too long. 100yrs of since the establishment of NI, borne largely out of a sentiment that it would bring peace and the best solution for the 'greater good' has failed. Or as someone argued at the time in support of the Treaty "In my opinion it gives us freedom, not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire … but the freedom to achieve it.”
The people of Ireland, North and South deserve the opportunity to have their say to remedy a great wrong.
Considering the populations and applying a 3:1 ratio of voter proportion South: North, I estimate that in the entirety of the whole island some 71% would vote for a UI.
The "now is not the right time" brigade have had their way for far too long. 100yrs of since the establishment of NI, borne largely out of a sentiment that it would bring peace and the best solution for the 'greater good' has failed. Or as someone argued at the time in support of the Treaty "In my opinion it gives us freedom, not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire … but the freedom to achieve it.”
The people of Ireland, North and South deserve the opportunity to have their say to remedy a great wrong.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
@WolfeTone I thought we were discussing the GFA, not rehashing the debates of 100 years ago.
I'm not sure where you are getting that from? Are you sure you are not thinking about Catholic population of NI?
My recollection is that a vote for a UI in NI was traditionally between 20-25%?
As the independent report states "An exclusive Irish Independent /Kantar poll of 2,250 people across the island suggests there is momentum behind the idea of holding a Border poll in both the Republic and Northern Ireland."
If you were a Unionist today, adamant of never wanting a UI what do you do? Do you take the Gregory Campbell approach of its" never going to happen", or the Peter Robinson approach "we need to prepare for a border poll"?
In any discussion about whether we should hold a border poll or not, the debates of 100 yrs may be useful in supporting / opposing the motion.
Just to add to that, the constitutional arrangements for a UI would also have to be teased out.
My instinct is that a New Ireland would end up being Home Rule for slow learners!
The poll also found that...
But on the question of finances, only one in five are willing to pay more tax to facilitate the merging of the two jurisdictions.
In the Republic, 54pc said they would be unwilling to pay more tax to fund a United Ireland. Just 22pc said they would pay more while 24pc didn’t know.
In the North, 63pc rejected the idea of higher taxes compared with 17pc who would and 20pc didn’t know. The jury is out in the Republic in terms of financial stability in the event of a united Ireland. In the North, over half believe they would be worse off. Just one in six see a rosy outlook.
But on the question of finances, only one in five are willing to pay more tax to facilitate the merging of the two jurisdictions.
In the Republic, 54pc said they would be unwilling to pay more tax to fund a United Ireland. Just 22pc said they would pay more while 24pc didn’t know.
In the North, 63pc rejected the idea of higher taxes compared with 17pc who would and 20pc didn’t know. The jury is out in the Republic in terms of financial stability in the event of a united Ireland. In the North, over half believe they would be worse off. Just one in six see a rosy outlook.
I would have thought that as a positive. I think people are broadly accepting of having to pay taxes, but to pay more tax , for anything?
The tax issue is a red herring. The notion is peddled that Ireland will have to fill the British subvention that underpins NI existence, at €15bn (?) a year.
I don't subscribe to this notion at all. In base terms, well, NI won't exist, so there is that.
Furthermore, as part of any dialogue and agreement for a new UI, it will be in everyone's interest - Britain, EU, US, that such a transition occur as smoothly as possible. I do not think that a decade or two of financial transitioning, supported initially Ireland, EU, Britain and the US, slowly being subsumed by Ireland in total would be out of the question.
In short, if it is done right, a UI could be an economic boom for Ireland.
The last thing anyone would want is a more costly civil war, if reunification lead to widespread unemployment and economic depression.