Barmy new definition of unity by consent now endorsed by FG heavyweight Sean Donlon

edwin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
6,127
This year has seen a succession of political figures, including our new Taoiseach, suggest that a United Ireland can only be achieved with unionist consent not just consent of the 6 county electorate as per the Good Friday Agreement. The latest is ex FG advisor and diplomat Sean Donlon.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/macgill-summer-school/sinn-féin-should-take-seats-at-westminster-says-former-diplomat-1.3158650

"Mr Donlon also was critical of Sinn Féin TD Mary Lou McDonald, describing the current period as the “endgame” for partition. “Does she ever stop to think about unionist consent?” he asked.

“Harping on about the end of partition without any reference to consent...does not help to unlock unionists,” he said.
Mr Donlon also referred to the notion of unification “happening by numbers” which he said was “neither desirable nor is it achievable”.

“There is no attraction and no prospect, Brexit or otherwise, of unity without consent. Numbers ultimately will not decide the issue.”


Exactly how would unionist consent for a UI be measured? Somebody supporting a UI is by definition not a unionist so the only viable measure of being an 'ex-unionist' is probably religion. Do these idiots now want to introduce a sectarian measure for unification? Does this consent require a majority of 'unionists'?

This is a worrying erosion of the consent principle which people like Donlon fought for over many years. Are they backsliding because they fear it may be in reach in 20-30 years and are scared? Either way, this needs to be refuted by FF, SF, SDLP and any other nationalist or republican parties.
 


SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,360
Are they backsliding because they fear it may be in reach in 20-30 years and are scared?
In a nutshell. It was coming anyway through demographics in 20 or so years but the catalyst for all this current wave of hysteria is - Brexit. Brexit has totally put the sh1ts up southern partitionist types, as the north as a whole voted against Brexit including large numbers of wealthy farmer and professional middle-class unionists. That demographic is now potentially convertible to the merits of a UI in a post-Brexit scenario, within the next decade even.

And that terrifies the corrupt snivellers.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
So what are you saying?

That unionist feelings about unification don't matter?

But there's not a trace of tribalist triumphalism in your view. Not a trace.

And your position is much more justifiable than the unionist majoritarian not-an-inch stance before the GFA.

This outbreedem attitude is frankly disgusting.
 

Strawberry

Moderator
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,294
Its sloppy thinking from Donlon and others. A unionist is by definition someone who wants to stay in the UK, and can be Catholic or Protestant. What these people really mean is that they want the majority of Protestants in the North to become Nationalists before there is a united Ireland. While that would indeed be desirable, its not going to happen and its not a requirement for unity under the GFA either.

You can't move the goal posts 20 years after the match ended.
 

edwin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
6,127
So what are you saying?

That unionist feelings about unification don't matter?

But there's not a trace of tribalist triumphalism in your view. Not a trace.

And your position is much more justifiable than the unionist majoritarian not-an-inch stance before the GFA.

This outbreedem attitude is frankly disgusting.
I'm saying that unionist and nationalist feelings are equal. Being forced to be part of the UK is equally upsetting to nationalists as being part of a UI would be to unionists. That's why there is an intergovernmental agreement setting out that 50%+1 is the criteria for deciding the constitutional status.

I'm sorry this clear logic upsets you but an agreement has been made and needs to be honoured.
 

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
17,399
Some want to go back to the days when the vote of Nationalists / Republicans did not carry the same weight as Unionist votes .

Do they want to give each Unionist Two Votes......

Another Elite out of touch with ordinary people . Imagine an Northern Nationalist / Republican expecting their vote to count the same as everybody else's.......
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,360
I'm sorry this clear logic upsets you but an agreement has been made and needs to be honoured.
Logic and Toland are not friends when it comes to UI/North-related threads. He just can't resist barging onto them furiously spouting complete fncking nonsense straight out of the Sindo c1973. On threads like this it's really best just to completely ignore whatever the senile old fool is guldering on about.
 

Mick Mac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
7,851
So what are you saying?

That unionist feelings about unification don't matter?

But there's not a trace of tribalist triumphalism in your view. Not a trace.

And your position is much more justifiable than the unionist majoritarian not-an-inch stance before the GFA.

This outbreedem attitude is frankly disgusting.
Are you looking for some poetry to history that doesn't exist?

The outbreedem argument is the simple fact from which it begins.
 

Mick Mac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
7,851
Logic and Toland are not friends when it comes to UI/North-related threads. He just can't resist barging onto them furiously spouting complete fncking nonsense straight out of the Sindo c1973. On threads like this it's really best just to completely ignore whatever the senile old fool is guldering on about.
I find that ageist comment offensive.
 

nakatomi

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,709
Wait until there is a permanent SF first minister , and the majority of MPs are SF.

It will happen, it is just a matter of time.
 

Barroso

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
4,165
In a nutshell. It was coming anyway through demographics in 20 or so years but the catalyst for all this current wave of hysteria is - Brexit. Brexit has totally put the sh1ts up southern partitionist types, as the north as a whole voted against Brexit including large numbers of wealthy farmer and professional middle-class unionists. That demographic is now potentially convertible to the merits of a UI in a post-Brexit scenario, within the next decade even.

And that terrifies the corrupt snivellers.
Yes, you have hit the nail right on the head.
The Southern establishment is absolutely terrified about their umbilical cord being cut. They have fought hard in public, and even harder behind the scenes, to keep us within London's orbit. Now they see England leaving us, by popular demand. The southern unionist/castle catholic type is horrified, and so we have all these threads about returning to the commonwealth, leaving the EU, raising the bar higher for unification, and what not.
With the last six years of FG government here, trips over by queenie and Charlie and so on, they thought things were going their way, and now this.

And in the North, it's not just the wealthy farmer types who don't want Brexit - it's your average Alliance voter. They were very happy with their double status as more British than Irish, but are willing to tilt towards more Irish than British in the Brexit scenario. This in just one year has changed the balance in the north.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
A double lock requiring a majority of unionists and nationalists, of Protestants and Catholics or of left-handlers and right handers, in any topic would be great in some contexts e.g. Brexit but disastrous in others e.g. marriage equality.

In the case of unification vote, the requirement is 50%+1 of valid poll on referendum day. That is it.

Current numbers are registered voters 1,254,000 voters, of whom 64% voted in the last election ( leaving a valid poll of 802,000). One could expect a higher turnout for a vote on unity but taking the current quota as 401,001.
Last election:
SF got 225,000 votes
SDLP got 95,5000

They fall short by just 80,000.

The outbreed and outvote tactic is getting closer to the goal. Changing the goalposts is unacceptable and won't happen. Once it looks like a majority will vote for unity, then the Secretary of State must facilitate the poll. (Independent NI, joint sovereignty, or repartition is out, out, out).

This is the endgame.

(Btw the reference to Sean Donlon being a FG heavyweight is plain silly. He was a career diplomat. He still reflects the views of 1980s Iveagh House. He was appointed to various posts by various government since - and in doing so delayed taking a pension. One can disagree with him without the caricature of being FG).
 
Last edited:

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
A double lock requiring a majority of unionists and nationalists, of Protestants and Catholics or of left-handlers and right handers, in any topic would be great in some contexts e.g. Brexit but disastrous in others e.g. marriage equality.

In the case of unification vote, the requirement is 50%+1 of valid poll on referendum day. That is it.

Current numbers are registered voters 1,254,000 voters, of whom 64% voted in the last election ( leaving a valid poll of 802,000). One could expect a higher turnout for a vote on unity but taking the current quota as 401,001.
Last election:
SF got 225,000 votes
SDLP got 95,5000

They fall short by just 80,000.

The outbreed and outvote tactic is getting closer to the goal. Changing the goalposts is unacceptable and won't happen. Once it looks like a majority will vote for unity, then the Secretary of State must facilitate the poll. (Independent NI, joint sovereignty, or repartition is out, out, out).

This is the endgame.
All sounds good in theory but In was under the impression that about a third of 'nationalists' prefer the union (NHS and all that).
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
All sounds good in theory but In was under the impression that about a third of 'nationalists' prefer the union (NHS and all that).
I would say it currently more than a third. Why would anyone chose the Hse over NHS, high income and VAT rates or the strong connection between church and state (e.g. Baptism barrier, hospital patronage, Angelus, oaths, blasphemy).
We need to change. Quickly.
 

RodShaft

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
9,167
So what are you saying?

That unionist feelings about unification don't matter?

But there's not a trace of tribalist triumphalism in your view. Not a trace.

And your position is much more justifiable than the unionist majoritarian not-an-inch stance before the GFA.

This outbreedem attitude is frankly disgusting.

You do understand that democracy means majority rule?


Majority rule with safe guards for minorities, but majority rule nevertheless. Anything else is a subversion of democracy.

First, pre_reformation, the native Irish were not allowed vote for or stand in the Irish parliament.

Post reformation, catholic became a proxy for native Irish, and catholics were barred from voting or standing for parliament.

Then when it looked like catholics might have to get the vote, the Irish parliament was abolished.


Catholics were now given the vote because as a miniscule minority in the UK, their votes didn't matter.

When Ireland voted in a landslide to support a party promising independence, the country was partitioned, again subverting democracy and creating a last stand for protestants.

Always the subversion of democracy against one 'side'.

Now the suggestion is that even IF A MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN A FREE AND FAIR VOTE DECIDE to finally end this anti Irish nightmare, you won't accept the democratic outcome.


Have a good look at yourself man.


Varadkar is adding himself to this subversion of democracy.



The answer is not to avoid the democratic outcome of a vote, it is to introduce safeguards for the minority.
 

Henry94.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,925
Suppose we had a majority in the north for Irish unity but a majority of unionists were only willing to consent to a united Ireland once we did not have abortion or gay marriage? How important would unionist consent be to us then?

I think we would see such a veto as undemocratic. So what exactly are the likes of Donlon suggesting as a definition of consent? Albert Reynolds put on the record an offer of reserved seats at cabinet for unionism. Consent for constitutional arrangements that respect their tradition an their Britishness are perfectly reasonable and would find little objection in nationalist circles post a successful referendum on unity.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
I think ultimately the point is that Unionist consent would be preferable under the conditions laid down by the Republic, but it's not essential. I can sense the momentum building quickly on this one.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
28,239
How do you know who's a unionist and who's not? Do they have outy or inny belly buttons? Exactly how do we run an election where you need, say, 60%unionist consent? Do people register as unionist in advance and then get a different coloured voting card? If so all nationalists have to do is sign up as unionist and vote Tà.
Do we base it on constituencies? That's just a path to repartition.
It's a daft notion worthy of 20th century thinking
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,509
So what are you saying?

That unionist feelings about unification don't matter?

But there's not a trace of tribalist triumphalism in your view. Not a trace.

And your position is much more justifiable than the unionist majoritarian not-an-inch stance before the GFA.

This outbreedem attitude is frankly disgusting.
What about nationalist feelings ? Are they less important ? Does a majority of the North matter less if they are nationalist than unionist ?

It's funny that people like you are concerned about the feelings of a future unionist minority but you never gave a toss about the nationalist minority in the North forced to live in the UK.
The problem really is that people like yourself thought the principle of consent would ensure the status of the North in the UK forever and now with Brexit etc it is looking a little shaky and you are panicking and trying to rewrite the rules, and pretend the GFA and the principle of consent mean something else.

It is a very dangerous path, not only does it take confidence away from the GFA for nationalists it gives succour to those who think they could oppose the principle of consent if it went against their own wishes.
 

blinding

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
17,399
Wasn't life easier for some people when the Nationalists / Republicans were second class citizens.......Some of them are wishing the Old Days Back......
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top