[https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/editorial-a-supermajority-would-be-a-sensible-requirement-in-a-border-poll-but-it-is-too-late-for-that-4382687](https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/editorial-a-supermajority-would-be-a-sensible-requirement-in-a-border-poll-but-it-is-too-late-for-that-4382687)
News Letter editorial on Tuesday October 24 2023:
Once again the junior Northern Ireland Office minister Steve Baker is in trouble for something he said.
Mr Baker merely said that he would prefer to see a supermajority in a border poll before a united Ireland.
This is of course a threshold that unionists would want to see before any change in the constitutional position. The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and the late SDLP politician Seamus Mallon have talked about how problematic it will be if there is only a narrow 50% plus one majority for an all Ireland.
But the time for such a requirement was in 1998. This newspaper backed the Belfast Agreement but if any aspect of that deal has looked like a mistake it is the way in which the UK essentially lost control of the destiny of part of its territory. France, Spain, the US, etc all retain a national say on whether parts of their territory stay or go. If the region has any say at all, the nation has a greater one. Now the sole input London has against a border poll here is the right to deny one – but it can’t even do that if polls appear to show support for a united Ireland, a blocking mechanism that republicans are certain to test in court.
Note that if there is a single vote majority in favour of an all Ireland, that’s it – forever. Ireland won’t allow a vote to return in the future if people think a mistake has been made. So a supermajority clause would be a modest attempt to protect NI from extinction in a narrow vote scenario. You could say it is admirable that Mr Baker admits using his own suggested minimum threshold, Brexit (which he strongly backed) would itself have failed to garner sufficient support. But his comment vis a vis NI just raises unionist hopes that such a supermajority might be inserted into border poll rules. It won’t.
Yesterday’s angry reaction to Mr Baker’s remark showed that nationalists can describe a 50% plus one vote as unwise, but a UK Tory minister can’t. He has yet to learn such rules.
by Seamus_Hean3y
15 comments
Surprisingly more nuanced than Sammy McBride’s opinion piece in the BT yesterday.
At least Ben, unlike Sammy, isn’t publishing a prospectus of how intransigent loyalists should act once reunification is confirmed.
A supermajority would be an ideal *result* in a border poll, and we should all hope that’s what happens. Which is not the same thing as rigging the referendum to require it.
I wonder will this be the tack political unionism takes to try to push off the day; maybe not, preferring not even to engage with the question for fear of giving it legitimacy.
Brexit proved it would be sensible. But 50+1 was agreed in the GFA so no one is seriously contemplating changing it now.
Yeah, we tried that whole thing of making unionist votes more valuable than nationalist votes for five decades, and it didn’t end well.
[deleted]
And if 20 years from now demographics and polling indicated a supermajority was indeed on the cards unionists would demand an A+ majority of 90%.
And 20 years after that if demographics and polling indicated that result was likely then unionists would demand that a single no vote gets to overrule the result.
Fuck that noise. Nip this shit in the bud now and laugh all supermajority talk out the door.
I can see the logic of a supermajority, the more people onboard with such a monumental change the better, I mean it would be really preferable to a very close vote like Brexit which people will be complaining and fighting about for the next 50 years but it’s not fair to be changing the goalposts this late in the game.
“No Supermajority. No Stormont!”
I can already see the DUP getting behind yet another lost cause as an excuse to stay out of Govt. Theyll huff and theyll puff, theyll do the usual dance and for some reason the NI media will entertain this notion
A supermajority is the latest storm in a teacup.
We’re no closer to a majority for unity in Northern Ireland than Scotland is to its own majority for independence. It’s always going to be “closer than ever before”, and always going to be just another 10 years away.
The sooner we accept this the better. We don’t need unity, any more than Sweden and Norway need unity or Spain and Portugal need unity. All we need is a spirit of cooperation and a desire to collaborate.
Given the shit show that was Brexit it probably would be but can’t change the rules now, if it is a shit show so be it
If it didn’t require a super majority to initially cause partition or retain NI in the UK why should one be needed for unification? Screams double standards
>to protect NI from extinction
Many of us would love to see it go extinct though.
The question is never flipped though. Since we’re in the era of hypotheticals acting outside the GFA, then why not a referendum asking “Should NI stay in the UK?” that requires 60% or it’s cut loose.
In normal circumstances, major constitutional change should require a super majority vote.
Northern Ireland was created with the intent purpose of having a lasting protestant unionist majority. 3 of the 9 counties of Ulster were excluded for this purpose. The moment the majority support for remaining in the UK ends, NI’s whole reason to exist evaporates. The only alternatives are unification or carving out increasingly small sections of the province that want to remain in the UK.
DUP were satisfied to back a 52/48 “win” when NI itself voted to remain. Amazing how democracy works sometimes
Who is voting from northern Ireland to take the Irish debt on? As in a united Ireland?Their finances have gone to shit (as have ours)with the open door policy ,crime is highest, medical is as bad or worse than ours and they pay on top.I get old historical things but in today’s climate are the youngsters affording to survive not more important than ages old grudges. ?