Quote:
Unionists have an effective veto over localised decisions affecting them. Ignoring this is just burying the head in sand. Also, as I've explained repeatedly on this and similar threads, the moving goalposts argument is pretty irrelevant; future unionist leaders aren't bound by what past predecessors agreed. It's an effective basis of our democratic system, just like the specific constitution and referenda are of yours.
I just think it renders the GFA rather meaningless. Don't you? I like to think of myself as a realist, sure, but what was/is the point in it if there isn't really an agreement in place at all that ought to be adhered to? Do you expect nationalists/republicans to adhere to what they agreed?