United Ireland: A hypothetical.

[blinding]

actually I'm English served there would like it to grow up.
cause the unionists have signed it with bad faith you can take that as read

What I am saying is unless there is radical change in the North that will take years
even if you got a united Ireland it wouldn't be really united if you had loyalist ghettos prepared to kill any catholic that stepped foot inside

just oppression on the other foot some people would think that a win.
More intelligent people might think before redrawing any borders getting rid of peace walls etc etc might be a more realistic place to start.

You should also consider that the british goverment may act in bad faith towards the Unionists.
If the british goverment could offload the extremely expensive failed statelet without too much hassle/violence they certainly would.
Unionist politicians have very bad sleep at night when they consider how much trust they have in british goverments.
You know if I was putting my faith in british goverments I would not sleep that well at night either.In history british goverments have given Irish people plenty of reason to have sleepless nights.

[woody brighton]

unionist politicons I certainly have a low opinion of
they managed mostly to keep there armed thugs at arms length.
I just think theres a lot of work persuading people in the north that mutual co exsistance is possible before changing the borders

[Keith-M]

51% is all that is required. That is enshrined in an international agreement and accepted by the population in NI and in the 26.

Can I suggest you read the agreement again?

Are you saying that the unionists didn't know what they were voting on or are you suggesting that they will simply try to renege when the vote occurrs?

No, I'm saying YOU don't know what people voted for. Any "united Ireland" also requires the support of people in this country AND it requires legislation to pass through both parliaments. Therefore if for whatever reason, the people or the parliament of this country decide that 50%+1 is not the basis for bringing N.I. into a "united Ireland", they can choose not to do so and come to an alternative arrangement, which is agreeable to the majority in both countries. The fact that FF (and I believe FG before hem) are saying that 50%+1 is NOT the basis for a "united Ireland" is therefore significant as it means it won't happen.

Unionists are not fools BTW.

Who said they were?

[sadie85]

I do, and they are...

[hopi watcher]

Can I suggest you read the agreement again?



No, I'm saying YOU don't know what people voted for. Any "united Ireland" also requires the support of people in this country AND it requires legislation to pass through both parliaments. Therefore if for whatever reason, the people or the parliament of this country decide that 50%+1 is not the basis for bringing N.I. into a "united Ireland", they can choose not to do so and come to an alternative arrangement, which is agreeable to the majority in both countries. The fact that FF (and I believe FG before hem) are saying that 50%+1 is NOT the basis for a "united Ireland" is therefore significant as it means it won't happen.



Who said they were?

This is all rather sad. Another suggesting that the British government may have acted in bad faith and would, in the face of the majority will, act contrary to it. To suggest that either parliment has the discretion not to move the necessary legislation on foot of the simple majority is wrong. That would have rendered that agreement meaningless. The agreement to which both governments are a party to states that the necessary legislation WILL, not may, be moved on foot of a vote showing that the majority want re-unification.