gaaboard.com

Non GAA Discussion => General discussion => Topic started by: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 03:16:23 PM

Title: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 03:16:23 PM
Hi all just something I have been thinking about since the most recent elections. A United Ireland, Eire Nua, Independent Peoples Republic of Ireland how ever you want to call it.
How would it look?
What way would it work?
How do we make it inclusive of all the people of the island as set out by the men of 1916 through the proclamation?
How do we entice the unionist people to want to be part of an independent republic?
Do the majority of Irish people want to be part of a 32 county independent Republic?
So many questions to so many to all these questions even. So many opinions on this subject. Coming up to 100 years from the Easter Rising I feel it's a discussion worth having.
What are your Views?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 27, 2015, 04:15:45 PM
Good topic whb. To be honest I'm no economic expert so I won't pretend to know how it woould function if it were to happen. I honestly don't know how to entice unionists either, just look at Tom Elliot, he won't even go to a GAA match ffs. I would like to see a united Ireland in my lifetime, but people's attitudes have to change. That includes people from the 26 who exist in an 'I'm alright Jack' type lifestyle. I know I haven't answered any of your.questions, but it's my tippence worth anyway.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on May 27, 2015, 04:24:27 PM
How do we entice the unionist people to want to be part of an independent republic?

The Brits have spent 800+ years trying to persuade us that we are British and that we should be happy being part of the UK.

It hasn't worked.

What makes you think that there is any chance of us persuading the Unionists that they are not British and that they should leave the UK.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:30:03 PM
How do we entice the unionist people to want to be part of an independent republic?

The Brits have spent 800+ years trying to persuade us that we are British and that we should be happy being part of the UK.

It hasn't worked.

What makes you think that there is any chance of us persuading the Unionists that they are not British and that they should leave the UK.

Jeez, give us a chance to engage in 300 pages of waffle (at least 20 pages worth of which will come from my keyboard) before posting something as sensible as that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 05:10:47 PM
If there were 2 Yes votes for a United Ireland in separate referenda either side of the border I still don't think that there would a simple United Ireland without some British involvement in the North. People would have to prep themselves for that type of united Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 27, 2015, 05:20:28 PM
If the Brits are prepared to give us a shed load of dough I'm prepared to consider nearly anything
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hardy on May 27, 2015, 05:27:30 PM
Yiz'd have to give up the accent. And calling what the world calls a fry and is slightly ashamed of eating "The Ulster Fry". And being proud of it as the flagship of your cuisine. And the accent.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Bingo on May 27, 2015, 05:28:41 PM
Would there not have to be 3 referenda for each independent state involved:

1. Northern Ireland
2. Republic of Ireland
3. South Armagh

 ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 05:38:24 PM
How do we entice the unionist people to want to be part of an independent republic?

The Brits have spent 800+ years trying to persuade us that we are British and that we should be happy being part of the UK.

It hasn't worked.

What makes you think that there is any chance of us persuading the Unionists that they are not British.

The difference is that we are not in Britain and any attempt to convince people that they are something else is always a hard sell. The unionists are in Ireland and them being Irish is simple normality, in the end normality asserts itself.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on May 27, 2015, 05:49:19 PM
Quote
How do we make it inclusive of all the people of the island as set out by the men of 1916 through the proclamation?
How do we entice the unionist people to want to be part of an independent republic?

Does it have to be based on the 1916 Proclamation?

Put is this way. Imagine the Plenary session at the beginning of talks, chaired by some international martyr. Someone takes out the 1916 Proclamation and says it must be based on that. Any Unionist at the table (secretly delighted by this) takes out the Act of Union and says it must be no more than an amended version of that. Another group take out the Bible and insist that the new State must comply with Scripture while Joe Higgins says the meeting must address all attendees as Comrade. FF suggest all communications be done via brown envelope while FG say envelope's are untrustworthy and we should use their man's mobile phones.

The Chairman would send them all outside with knives and tell them more blood needs to be spilled until you all cop the f*ck on.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:00:10 PM
The difference is that we are not in Britain and any attempt to convince people that they are something else is always a hard sell. The unionists are in Ireland and them being Irish is simple normality, in the end normality asserts itself.

And right there you have a perfect illustration of why we will never be able to persuade the unionists to leave the UK and join a united Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:02:01 PM
The difference is that we are not in Britain and any attempt to convince people that they are something else is always a hard sell. The unionists are in Ireland and them being Irish is simple normality, in the end normality asserts itself.

And right there you have a perfect illustration of why we will never be able to persuade the unionists to leave the UK and join a united Ireland.

I post white and you say black. Perhaps you might want to elaborate.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:07:28 PM
The difference is that we are not in Britain and any attempt to convince people that they are something else is always a hard sell. The unionists are in Ireland and them being Irish is simple normality, in the end normality asserts itself.

And right there you have a perfect illustration of why we will never be able to persuade the unionists to leave the UK and join a united Ireland.

I post white and you say black. Perhaps you might want to elaborate.

Rather than recognise their identity and look to ways that it could be incorporated into a united Ireland you simply tell them "No you're not British" and expect them to agree to it. If you can't understand why that won't persuade them into a united Ireland then there is nothing I can say that will get you to understand.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:24:06 PM
The difference is that we are not in Britain and any attempt to convince people that they are something else is always a hard sell. The unionists are in Ireland and them being Irish is simple normality, in the end normality asserts itself.

And right there you have a perfect illustration of why we will never be able to persuade the unionists to leave the UK and join a united Ireland.

I post white and you say black. Perhaps you might want to elaborate.

Rather than recognise their identity and look to ways that it could be incorporated into a united Ireland you simply tell them "No you're not British" and expect them to agree to it. If you can't understand why that won't persuade them into a united Ireland then there is nothing I can say that will get you to understand.

They may consider themselves as being of British heritage if they wish, but that has no implications for political structures any more than Irish Americans required to be actually ruled from Dublin. All I want is normality.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on May 27, 2015, 06:50:27 PM
The difference is that we are not in Britain and any attempt to convince people that they are something else is always a hard sell. The unionists are in Ireland and them being Irish is simple normality, in the end normality asserts itself.

And right there you have a perfect illustration of why we will never be able to persuade the unionists to leave the UK and join a united Ireland.

I post white and you say black. Perhaps you might want to elaborate.

Rather than recognise their identity and look to ways that it could be incorporated into a united Ireland you simply tell them "No you're not British" and expect them to agree to it. If you can't understand why that won't persuade them into a united Ireland then there is nothing I can say that will get you to understand.

They may consider themselves as being of British heritage if they wish, but that has no implications for political structures any more than Irish Americans required to be actually ruled from Dublin. All I want is normality.
Except for the fact that Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 27, 2015, 07:09:05 PM
I honestly think unionists would be treating very well under a UI. Because anytime they appear on rte, they lick their asses. Poor Orangemen can't get marching and showing their culture... That's the type of stuff I've heard from people in the south.

It's irrelevant though because it'll never happen. North and South people have two different mindsets, and have drifted in opposite directions.

I used to wish for a UI but what does it mean really? Some shower of inbred aristocrats and bankers will rule us and dictate every aspect of our lives no matter what side of the border we're on. It's all a fantasy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 27, 2015, 07:15:22 PM
As I outlined here some years ago - when the Referenda are held and passed ( around 2040??) in the 26 and 6  we'll more than likely end up with a new All Ireland political entity "Irish Confederation". Slimmed down versions of the Dáil and Stormont will look after "Internal affairs" in the 2 "Semi Autonomous Regions" ( present day 6 and 26 Cos ) while the new "Congress" of the Confederation will look after major matters/foreign affairs etc.
People in the 6 Cos will still be able to have British citizenship ( whether automatically or have to apply will be a matter for the British government - if Britain still exists of course) if they so wish. One of the Windsor Family will be allocated as Prince or Princess for those folks.
I expect we'll have a bland new Anthem and flag, probably a new Capital of the Confederation - Athlone or Armagh I would suggest.
Some kind of 3 person Presidency with perhaps some Executive powers may be set up ( One from the 26, one from each "tribe" in the North).
In the meantime it would help if the likes of SF, SDLP, FF, FG, Labour etc had even one line in their policy documents as to what they'd at least like the new All Ireland set up to look like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 07:21:57 PM
As I outlined here some years ago - when the Referenda are held and passed ( around 2040??) in the 26 and 6  we'll more than likely end up with a new All Ireland political entity "Irish Confederation". Slimmed down versions of the Dáil and Stormont will look after "Internal affairs" in the 2 "Semi Autonomous Regions" ( present day 6 and 26 Cos ) while the new "Congress" of the Confederation will look after major matters/foreign affairs etc.
People in the 6 Cos will still be able to have British citizenship ( whether automatically or have to apply will be a matter for the British government - if Britain still exists of course) if they so wish. One of the Windsor Family will be allocated as Prince or Princess for those folks.
I expect we'll have a bland new Anthem and flag, probably a new Capital of the Confederation - Athlone or Armagh I would suggest.
Some kind of 3 person Presidency with perhaps some Executive powers may be set up ( One from the 26, one from each "tribe" in the North).
In the meantime it would help if the likes of SF, SDLP, FF, FG, Labour etc had even one line in their policy documents as to what they'd at least like the new All Ireland set up to look like.


I'm not sure that it would help.

As why they don't have something like that already - the southern parties see an United Ireland as something they would facilitate if the people wanted it. They are not going to get too involved until a NI referendum is triggered and a yes vote likely. That is many, many years down the line if ever
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 27, 2015, 09:14:44 PM
Honestly think the Cultural differences between Northern and Southern nationalists would be difficult to reconcile without throwing unionists into the mix,at this stage.Gerry Fitt wasn't wrong all those years ago when he said he had more in common with an Ulster prod than a Cork Catholic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 09:16:40 PM
Honestly think the Cultural differences between Northern and Southern nationalists would be difficult to reconcile without throwing unionists into the mix,at this stage.Gerry Fitt wasn't wrong all those years ago when he said he had more in common with an Ulster prod than a Cork Catholic.
Yes anything that didn't at the very least "throw unionists into the mix" will be difficult to reconcile
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: rrhf on May 27, 2015, 09:56:28 PM
I think the South might be in trouble here.  The people in the new Southern statelet have struggled to define themselves and perhaps it has veered from being an alcohol, governmental and religiously controlled place to corruption and anarchy and internationally subservient. At least  Northern Unionists and Nationalists both have rich solid identities of which they are proud of.  Genetically the south probably need both of us down there to give a sense of direction and leadership and pride in oneself again, If we ever decide we want to let them in, we would need it renamed and it would obviously need to have more Northern than Southern influence..
Would it be called the United Kingdom of Northern and Southern Ireland.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: An Watcher on May 27, 2015, 10:00:29 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: rrhf on May 27, 2015, 10:08:08 PM
It would be great and it actually has more chance of happening under a Sinn Fein Irish government.  How likely is that though?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 10:08:29 PM
Honestly think the Cultural differences between Northern and Southern nationalists would be difficult to reconcile without throwing unionists into the mix,at this stage.Gerry Fitt wasn't wrong all those years ago when he said he had more in common with an Ulster prod than a Cork Catholic.

So, explain some of these cultural differences between someone from Lisnaskea and Lispole? What would be an example of this?



Quote
It would be great and it actually has more chance of happening under a Sinn Fein Irish government.  How likely is that though?


It has no chance of happening under an SF government, as they have zero capacity to resolve the economic issues involved.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:24:41 PM
I'm thinking that there will be tough pills to swallow on both sides. Its up to nationalists and republicans to encourage unionists to think about a 32 county Ireland. I think the things like flag, national anthem personal identity would be things where compromise would have to be made. A new flag, a different flag, a more inclusive national anthem something along the lines of the rugby I would assume. I can envisage something like a federal Ireland like something muted before in a previous comment. Possibly 4 states run by their separate councils ie. Ulster Munster Leinster Connaught and a Federal Government run out of somewhere that makes the bigger calls. Possibly a way out of the British identity problem would be for the new country to join the commonwealth in a way anyone who wanted to claim allegiance to lizzie could apply for their brit passport.
As for economy we have a first class agriculture structure one of the best in the world we have some of the best engineering companies in the world, corporation tax would have to be discussed and obviously things would have to be a lot tighter than I have stated. Education and health being run as one entity each is bound to be an advantage instead on 2 health services and 2 education systems on this island.
In my view religion should have no bearing on this as there are so many religious denominations everyone has their own view or no view on it.
Its a massive discussion lots to discuss many people will have differing opinions on it that's the whole beauty of the debate no one is totally right on it.
As for the unionists they would have a great say in the running of the country as they would win plenty of votes in an election on both sides. BUT the decision has to be made by civic society by the community groups the various organisations around the country all have to have their input into it. I suppose this is just another avenue for the discussion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: laoislad on May 27, 2015, 10:29:01 PM
I'm thinking that there will be tough pills to swallow on both sides. Its up to nationalists and republicans to encourage unionists to think about a 32 county Ireland. I think the things like flag, national anthem personal identity would be things where compromise would have to be made. A new flag, a different flag, a more inclusive national anthem something along the lines of the rugby I would assume. I can envisage something like a federal Ireland like something muted before in a previous comment. Possibly 4 states run by their separate councils ie. Ulster Munster Leinster Connaught and a Federal Government run out of somewhere that makes the bigger calls. Possibly a way out of the British identity problem would be for the new country to join the commonwealth in a way anyone who wanted to claim allegiance to lizzie could apply for their brit passport.
As for economy we have a first class agriculture structure one of the best in the world we have some of the best engineering companies in the world, corporation tax would have to be discussed and obviously things would have to be a lot tighter than I have stated. Education and health being run as one entity each is bound to be an advantage instead on 2 health services and 2 education systems on this island.
In my view religion should have no bearing on this as there are so many religious denominations everyone has their own view or no view on it.
Its a massive discussion lots to discuss many people will have differing opinions on it that's the whole beauty of the debate no one is totally right on it.
As for the unionists they would have a great say in the running of the country as they would win plenty of votes in an election on both sides. BUT the decision has to be made by civic society by the community groups the various organisations around the country all have to have their input into it. I suppose this is just another avenue for the discussion.
Seems like a lot of effort.
Sure aren't things grand the way they are.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 27, 2015, 10:43:25 PM
What sort of flag though? Cross of St. Patrick perhaps? Or is that too 'unionist' because it's represented on the union flag itself?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 27, 2015, 10:57:14 PM
Lately I've been thinking about what the Irish anthem and tri colour mean to me. Less and less to be honest. Like the Union flag, it's a divisive thing, used and abused by some to annoy others.

I was always a keen supporter of the flag and anthem at GAa matches. Now I'm not. It's not because banning them would entice more unionists to support GAA. I just feel there's no need for them. It's a political thing and should have no place in sport. There are better ways to represent our Irishness; music, dance, language, literature.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on May 27, 2015, 11:46:16 PM
I think the South might be in trouble here.  The people in the new Southern statelet have struggled to define themselves and perhaps it has veered from being an alcohol, governmental and religiously controlled place to corruption and anarchy and internationally subservient. At least  Northern Unionists and Nationalists both have rich solid identities of which they are proud of.  Genetically the south probably need both of us down there to give a sense of direction and leadership and pride in oneself again, If we ever decide we want to let them in, we would need it renamed and it would obviously need to have more Northern than Southern influence..
Would it be called the United Kingdom of Northern and Southern Ireland.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Genius.

I particularly love the bit where we need you 'genetically' to give 'leadership and pride'. I couldn't agree more.

I think Martin McGuinness should genetically mate with Gerry Adams for that very reason. The more little Merry McAdams we have the better.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on May 28, 2015, 12:00:28 AM
Culturally, there is no difference between north and south. Armagh men have more in common with Galway boyos than West Indian Cockneys.

We share roads, wildlife, weather, canals, rivers, townlands, sport, hospital care, education, placenames, humour and so on and so forth.

The occupied six statelet manufactured to create a unionist majority, which is all but gone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 12:00:50 AM
It would be great and it actually has more chance of happening under a Sinn Fein Irish government.  How likely is that though?
Yes, unionists aren't convinced now, but if SF was in charge in the south they'd be rushing to join up.  ::)

SF in government in the south pushes reunification further away than ever.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on May 28, 2015, 12:03:16 AM
It would be great and it actually has more chance of happening under a Sinn Fein Irish government.  How likely is that though?
Yes, unionists aren't convinced now, but if SF was in charge in the south they'd be rushing to join up.  ::)

SF in government in the south pushes reunification further away than ever.

If SF get into power, you are more likely to see independence votes splitting up the 26.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on May 28, 2015, 05:20:08 AM
It would be great and it actually has more chance of happening under a Sinn Fein Irish government.  How likely is that though?
Yes, unionists aren't convinced now, but if SF was in charge in the south they'd be rushing to join up.  ::)

SF in government in the south pushes reunification further away than ever.

The SDLP in government in the 6 would lead to a united Ireland quicker. Denis could unify the stoops with FG as they are both in his back pocket.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sdlp-drew-down-400-000-from-donation-to-establish-new-york-office-1.2128228
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: deiseach on May 28, 2015, 10:24:43 AM
I think the South might be in trouble here.  The people in the new Southern statelet have struggled to define themselves and perhaps it has veered from being an alcohol, governmental and religiously controlled place to corruption and anarchy and internationally subservient. At least  Northern Unionists and Nationalists both have rich solid identities of which they are proud of.  Genetically the south probably need both of us down there to give a sense of direction and leadership and pride in oneself again, If we ever decide we want to let them in, we would need it renamed and it would obviously need to have more Northern than Southern influence..
Would it be called the United Kingdom of Northern and Southern Ireland.

Poe's Law?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on May 28, 2015, 10:47:55 AM
I think the South might be in trouble here.  The people in the new Southern statelet have struggled to define themselves and perhaps it has veered from being an alcohol, governmental and religiously controlled place to corruption and anarchy and internationally subservient. At least  Northern Unionists and Nationalists both have rich solid identities of which they are proud of.  Genetically the south probably need both of us down there to give a sense of direction and leadership and pride in oneself again, If we ever decide we want to let them in, we would need it renamed and it would obviously need to have more Northern than Southern influence..
Would it be called the United Kingdom of Northern and Southern Ireland.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Genius.

I particularly love the bit where we need you 'genetically' to give 'leadership and pride'. I couldn't agree more.

I think Martin McGuinness should genetically mate with Gerry Adams for that very reason. The more little Merry McAdams we have the better.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


the Maze jail breaker is quizzical about your suggestion!!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: longballin on May 28, 2015, 11:34:54 AM
Great subject but seems to me many people from the free state think they already live in an independent republic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: illdecide on May 28, 2015, 12:05:47 PM
Build a wall across the country from Belfast all the way west (through the Lough too if we have too) and move all Prods north of that wall and all fenians south of the wall to which we can join the Mexicans and celebrate being back (we haven't went away you know)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: longballin on May 28, 2015, 12:15:56 PM
Build a wall across the country from Belfast all the way west (through the Lough too if we have too) and move all Prods north of that wall and all fenians south of the wall to which we can join the Mexicans and celebrate being back (we haven't went away you know)

Then we give them the North coast
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: illdecide on May 28, 2015, 01:03:36 PM
Build a wall across the country from Belfast all the way west (through the Lough too if we have too) and move all Prods north of that wall and all fenians south of the wall to which we can join the Mexicans and celebrate being back (we haven't went away you know)

Then we give them the North coast

Yeah it's called compromise
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 01:09:51 PM
Build a wall across the country from Belfast all the way west (through the Lough too if we have too) and move all Prods north of that wall and all fenians south of the wall to which we can join the Mexicans and celebrate being back (we haven't went away you know)

They can have North Belfast to Larne.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: laoislad on May 28, 2015, 01:16:31 PM
Could we not make Armagh into a country of its own and have it like Lesotho for example,and throw them all in there along with everyone from Armagh and Tyrone?
Would anyone really miss Armagh?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on May 28, 2015, 01:27:15 PM
Could we not make Armagh into a country of its own and have it like Lesotho for example,and throw them all in there along with everyone from Armagh and Tyrone?
Would anyone really miss Armagh?

I am not absolutely certain, but doesn't Scripture call for this?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: illdecide on May 28, 2015, 02:08:38 PM
Could we not make Armagh into a country of its own and have it like Lesotho for example,and throw them all in there along with everyone from Armagh and Tyrone?
Would anyone really miss Armagh?

We could be the Monaco of France :) Everyone would miss Armagh as we would not export our cheap Diesel to you peasants
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 28, 2015, 02:17:07 PM
Could we not make Armagh into a country of its own and have it like Lesotho for example,and throw them all in there along with everyone from Armagh and Tyrone?
Would anyone really miss Armagh?

Wasn't that the original idea with Queens County? English planters and all that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: laoislad on May 28, 2015, 02:20:21 PM
Could we not make Armagh into a country of its own and have it like Lesotho for example,and throw them all in there along with everyone from Armagh and Tyrone?
Would anyone really miss Armagh?

Wasn't that the original idea with Queens County? English planters and all that.
Maybe. We stood up to the fcukers though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on May 28, 2015, 02:47:24 PM
Honestly think the Cultural differences between Northern and Southern nationalists would be difficult to reconcile without throwing unionists into the mix,at this stage.Gerry Fitt wasn't wrong all those years ago when he said he had more in common with an Ulster prod than a Cork Catholic.
Tony that has nothing to do with the border, there are cultural differences between all regions of Ireland. It wasn't just a coincidence that in the recent referendum in the South that the Ulster counties vote reflected more closely the views that would be held on this side of the border. Gerry Fitt is a bad example any way.

Personally I believe that the future of Ireland North and south is closely linked with what is currently called the UK and any reunification is more likely within the context of the ROI rejoining a British Isles confederation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Bingo on May 28, 2015, 03:01:18 PM
A countries border is a line in the map that states who you pay taxes too. The idea of nationality and how this defines a person is becoming more and more diluted with each passing year as a result of emigration, the advances in technology and increased openness in society.

Been massive changes in the last 50 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 03:02:49 PM
A countries border is a line in the map that states who you pay taxes too. The idea of nationality and how this defines a person is becoming more and more diluted with each passing year as a result of emigration, the advances in technology and increased openness in society.

Been massive changes in the last 50 years.

The same could be said of counties, but I still dislike Down.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Bingo on May 28, 2015, 03:13:23 PM
A countries border is a line in the map that states who you pay taxes too. The idea of nationality and how this defines a person is becoming more and more diluted with each passing year as a result of emigration, the advances in technology and increased openness in society.

Been massive changes in the last 50 years.

The same could be said of counties, but I still dislike Down.

The taxes bit though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on May 28, 2015, 03:57:09 PM
A countries border is a line in the map that states who you pay taxes too. The idea of nationality and how this defines a person is becoming more and more diluted with each passing year as a result of emigration, the advances in technology and increased openness in society.

Been massive changes in the last 50 years.

The same could be said of counties, but I still dislike Down.

The taxes bit though.

I know lots in Armagh and lots in Down and more people pay taxes in Down than Armagh  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Bingo on May 28, 2015, 04:05:17 PM
A countries border is a line in the map that states who you pay taxes too. The idea of nationality and how this defines a person is becoming more and more diluted with each passing year as a result of emigration, the advances in technology and increased openness in society.

Been massive changes in the last 50 years.

The same could be said of counties, but I still dislike Down.

The taxes bit though.

I know lots in Armagh and lots in Down and more people pay taxes in Down than Armagh  ;)

Totally understandable and if you seen my post on page 1 or 2, I stated that there was three referendums that would be needed and I had this in mind  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on May 28, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
A countries border is a line in the map that states who you pay taxes too. The idea of nationality and how this defines a person is becoming more and more diluted with each passing year as a result of emigration, the advances in technology and increased openness in society.

Been massive changes in the last 50 years.

The same could be said of counties, but I still dislike Down.

The taxes bit though.

I know lots in Armagh and lots in Down and more people pay taxes in Down than Armagh  ;)

Totally understandable and if you seen my post on page 1 or 2, I stated that there was three referendums that would be needed and I had this in mind  ;D

I saw it of course, the FRSA will always be a separate place no matter who's on the throne!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 07:54:44 PM
As I outlined here some years ago - when the Referenda are held and passed ( around 2040??) in the 26 and 6  we'll more than likely end up with a new All Ireland political entity "Irish Confederation". Slimmed down versions of the Dáil and Stormont will look after "Internal affairs" in the 2 "Semi Autonomous Regions" ( present day 6 and 26 Cos ) while the new "Congress" of the Confederation will look after major matters/foreign affairs etc.
People in the 6 Cos will still be able to have British citizenship ( whether automatically or have to apply will be a matter for the British government - if Britain still exists of course) if they so wish. One of the Windsor Family will be allocated as Prince or Princess for those folks.
I expect we'll have a bland new Anthem and flag, probably a new Capital of the Confederation - Athlone or Armagh I would suggest.
Some kind of 3 person Presidency with perhaps some Executive powers may be set up ( One from the 26, one from each "tribe" in the North).
In the meantime it would help if the likes of SF, SDLP, FF, FG, Labour etc had even one line in their policy documents as to what they'd at least like the new All Ireland set up to look like.
There were a few lines in the SDLP's 2011 manifesto.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/sdlp/sdlp_2011-05-05_man.pdf

Uniquely among parties in the North, we are clear on the structures of a United Ireland and the strategy for achieving it.
In the United Ireland that the SDLP seeks:
• the Assembly would continue, as a regional parliament of a United Ireland with all its cross-community protections
• the Executive would be kept, bringing together all political parties
• all the Agreement’s equality and human rights protections, including the Bill of Rights, would still be guaranteed
• the right to identify oneself as British or Irish, or both, and hold British or Irish passports would endure
• East-West cooperation would continue. In particular, just as the Irish Government has a say in the North now, the British Government would have a say in the North in a United Ireland
• those in the North who want it, should have representation in the House of Lords in a United Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on May 29, 2015, 03:01:42 PM
Honestly think the Cultural differences between Northern and Southern nationalists would be difficult to reconcile without throwing unionists into the mix,at this stage.Gerry Fitt wasn't wrong all those years ago when he said he had more in common with an Ulster prod than a Cork Catholic.
Tony that has nothing to do with the border, there are cultural differences between all regions of Ireland. It wasn't just a coincidence that in the recent referendum in the South that the Ulster counties vote reflected more closely the views that would be held on this side of the border. Gerry Fitt is a bad example any way.

Personally I believe that the future of Ireland North and south is closely linked with what is currently called the UK and any reunification is more likely within the context of the ROI rejoining a British Isles confederation.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

'rejoining' could only mean the United Kingdom.

There is a greater chance of Gerry Adams marrying Prince Harry imho.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Darby on May 29, 2015, 03:04:19 PM
Should be easy enough to achieve if we put our minds to it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: deiseach on May 29, 2015, 03:10:13 PM
A ballot box in one hand and our minds in the other. Or something.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 29, 2015, 05:54:24 PM
Good to see the SDLP at least setting out their stall. Ye're welcome to stealing some of my ideas - PM me for address to send cheque to. ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: longballin on June 01, 2015, 11:04:24 AM
Reading this I find that a lot of people are happy enough with the status quo. Cant imagine why.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 01, 2015, 03:37:35 PM
Reading this I find that a lot of people are happy enough with the status quo. Cant imagine why.

I don't think it's a case of being "happy enough". Its more a case of it makes no difference which shower of pricks rule over us.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Ulick on November 20, 2015, 01:37:52 PM
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505)

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:43:14 PM
Currency movements shouldn't be relevant to long term political arrangements.

I wonder what would be the cost of opposition to the unification , how it would manifest itself and whether or not it has been modelled.
One of the man problems with economists is their use of the rational agent model. there are F all rational agents in the DUP, for example.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: deiseach on November 20, 2015, 01:51:58 PM
The lede is buried really deep in that IT article:

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: deiseach on November 20, 2015, 02:19:52 PM
If you could offer 'Britain' a binary choice between having or not having sovereignty over the North, I think they'd take it. My wife is always fulminating against the perfidious Jocks, but she went awful quiet when it looked like they might leave the Union. The end of The United Kingdom would be too much to bear.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 02:40:00 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.
And linen and shipbuilding were like tech is today. And time moved on and Belfast was hobbled by political dysfunction and eventually Dublin got motorways and the rest is history. But 100 years ago Belfast was way ahead in front.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 02:56:39 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.
the decline of the "Protestant" industries and the beginning of terrorism just killed whatever economic spark there was in Belfast. Glasgow has a similar feel, without the killing. The Clyde went through the same process of deindustrialisation and you are left with fabulous buildings from 100 years ago and not much from 30 years ago.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 20, 2015, 03:04:58 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.

Very possibly, but without the years of malfunction that was brought about by the partition of the country, who's to say something else wouldn't have replaced it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on November 20, 2015, 03:16:29 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.

Very possibly, but without the years of malfunction that was brought about by the partition of the country, who's to say something else wouldn't have replaced it.
Are there any examples of other cities in the UK that have gone on to prosper after having their main industry decimated? I think of places like Liverpool and Glasgow and think call centres  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 20, 2015, 04:20:34 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.

Very possibly, but without the years of malfunction that was brought about by the partition of the country, who's to say something else wouldn't have replaced it.
Are there any examples of other cities in the UK that have gone on to prosper after having their main industry decimated? I think of places like Liverpool and Glasgow and think call centres  ::)

In a united country, why would the north have fared any worse (or any better) than any other region in Ireland, no matter what parliament was pulling the strings?

Had the country stayed under British rule, the north would have received a greater slice of the goodies from Westminster, I don't think anyone would logically argue with that.

Had we become one entity, ruled from Dublin, why would the north not have gotten it's share of the tech/pharma/financial influx, in the same manner that, say, Cork did?

The only reason the economy of the north is in the state it is in currently, is the blueshirt's border.


Edit... the north is not a city....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 04:39:43 PM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.

Very possibly, but without the years of malfunction that was brought about by the partition of the country, who's to say something else wouldn't have replaced it.
Are there any examples of other cities in the UK that have gone on to prosper after having their main industry decimated? I think of places like Liverpool and Glasgow and think call centres  ::)

In a united country, why would the north have fared any worse (or any better) than any other region in Ireland, no matter what parliament was pulling the strings?

Had the country stayed under British rule, the north would have received a greater slice of the goodies from Westminster, I don't think anyone would logically argue with that.

Had we become one entity, ruled from Dublin, why would the north not have gotten it's share of the tech/pharma/financial influx, in the same manner that, say, Cork did?

The only reason the economy of the north is in the state it is in currently, is the blueshirt's border.


Edit... the north is not a city....
It's the border of Protestant Antrim and North Down. The other 4 counties were thrown in for ballast. The blueshirts had zero leverage.
Dev for all his republican bluster did nothing about it.
The Border Commission never met either.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 20, 2015, 04:48:31 PM
Indeed Seafòid. The Civil war was over the Oath and the status of the new State. Everybody accepted the North East would not be included. However all were led to believe that  South Down, a lot of Armagh, most of Fermanagh and Tyrone and parts of Derry incl the City would end up in the Free state following the Boundary Commission.
When the "yes" side wins the referendum will there be a move by Unionists to repartition the 6 cos??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505)

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00

The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the view that a united ireland is not currently viable
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on November 20, 2015, 05:11:25 PM
The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the view that a united ireland is not currently viable

In other words....., the article challenges the view that a United Ireland is viable?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the view that a united ireland is not currently viable

In other words....., the article challenges the view that a United Ireland is viable?

No
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 20, 2015, 05:34:54 PM
The 6 counties are in the classic position of the guy getting welfare who does the sums and reckons  that any job he can get will not pay more than the welfare, even though the guy next door with a job  is doing well. The guy next door had a small reverse in the recession having borrowed too much for his Merc,  and welfare guy sneered at this, but now things are looking up and a new Merc looks a likely prospect. Of course, just as if individuals  got a job than the pay would improve over time to figure well beyond that available on welfare, this does not impress in the short term and economic reports with a similar message about the 6 counties get a similar response.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 20, 2015, 05:47:15 PM
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505)

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00

The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the my view that a united ireland is not currently viable

Fixed that for ye
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 05:48:42 PM
The 6 counties are in the classic position of the guy getting welfare who does the sums and reckons  that any job he can get will not pay more than the welfare, even though the guy next door with a job  is doing well. The guy next door had a small reverse in the recession having borrowed too much for his Merc,  and welfare guy sneered at this, but now things are looking up and a new Merc looks a likely prospect. Of course, just as if individuals  got a job than the pay would improve over time to figure well beyond that available on welfare, this does not impress in the short term and economic reports with a similar message about the 6 counties get a similar response.
the welfare is supposed to help NI get back on its feet but it's not doing anything.
The Troubles destroyed an awful lot of businesses that never got going again.
I think back in 93 or so there was nowhere you could buy a cup of coffee in Belfast. Nobody hung around the city centre long enough for such fripperies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 06:13:27 PM
Unfortunately, now we've gone too f**king far the other way where there are any number of places that will happily gouge you for a cup of shite coffee and the city breeds the type of **** who comes up with notions like opening cafes that only sell cereal. And then gouging people for it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 20, 2015, 06:32:04 PM
'Gouging' people for a bowl of cereal is still better than gouging people for their religion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 20, 2015, 06:36:32 PM
'Gouging' people for a bowl of cereal is still better than gouging people for their religion. Nationalist affiliation

Can ye get a bowl of porridge in them there places?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 20, 2015, 08:57:18 PM
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505)

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00

IMHO this is the direction the discourse on a UI should go.

Everyone has principles until it comes to their money. Look at Paul Murphy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: larryin89 on November 20, 2015, 10:30:42 PM
Reading this I find that a lot of people are happy enough with the status quo. Cant imagine why.

I don't think it's a case of being "happy enough". Its more a case of it makes no difference which shower of pricks rule over us.

A part of me agrees with that benny. I'd always consider myself republican minded but as one gets on in years , year by year you start to think ,whats it all about anyway , what would it mean ? Not a lot as we would just be ruled by the same politics . Unless there is going to be a revolution of connolyites to take over , I just don't see what difference it would make .

Working class people all over the world not just on this island are fooked , low pay , shit conditions that worsen and worsen year by year . That is the only way IMO if some genius found a way of establishing a common bond between both cultures through a fight for workers pay and conditions in the o6c . Funny enough after reading Joe Cahill s book recently he touched on it too in describing how the nationalist community missed a chance to join forces with a unionist workers strike in the 50s .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 10:35:07 PM
NI is small enough to encourage game changing fdi in one sphere of industry. Become a core for it. Tool up the universities, support spin offs. It could be doing a lot more.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on November 20, 2015, 10:40:10 PM
If you could offer 'Britain' a binary choice between having or not having sovereignty over the North, I think they'd take it. My wife is always fulminating against the perfidious Jocks, but she went awful quiet when it looked like they might leave the Union. The end of The United Kingdom would be too much to bear.

Would the Tories et al focus on trying to keep NI in the UK, like they did with Scotland, if a referendum ever comes to pass??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 20, 2015, 10:50:41 PM
NI is small enough to encourage game changing fdi in one sphere of industry. Become a core for it. Tool up the universities, support spin offs. It could be doing a lot more.

Well recent UU cuts included maths, computing and several languages. That doesn't sound like tooling up for FDI, it is just tooling.

If you could offer 'Britain' a binary choice between having or not having sovereignty over the North, I think they'd take it. My wife is always fulminating against the perfidious Jocks, but she went awful quiet when it looked like they might leave the Union. The end of The United Kingdom would be too much to bear.

Would the Tories et al focus on trying to keep NI in the UK, like they did with Scotland, if a referendum ever comes to pass??

Whatever about deiseach's wife, I think the London establishment think of "Britain" as requiring Scotland, but NI is an appendage whose loss would be scarcely noticed. The real danger, IMHO, is that NI would not be given flexibility in things where it should be, in order to prevent Scotland having it. And while Tories are imperialist in nature, they don't like spending public money, something all sections in NI agree on. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:24:35 AM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.

Very possibly, but without the years of malfunction that was brought about by the partition of the country, who's to say something else wouldn't have replaced it.
Are there any examples of other cities in the UK that have gone on to prosper after having their main industry decimated? I think of places like Liverpool and Glasgow and think call centres  ::)

In a united country, why would the north have fared any worse (or any better) than any other region in Ireland, no matter what parliament was pulling the strings?

Had the country stayed under British rule, the north would have received a greater slice of the goodies from Westminster, I don't think anyone would logically argue with that.

Had we become one entity, ruled from Dublin, why would the north not have gotten it's share of the tech/pharma/financial influx, in the same manner that, say, Cork did?

The only reason the economy of the north is in the state it is in currently, is the blueshirt's border.


Edit... the north is not a city....
It's the border of Protestant Antrim and North Down. The other 4 counties were thrown in for ballast. The blueshirts had zero leverage.
Dev for all his republican bluster did nothing about it.
The Border Commission never met either.

I'm well aware of the geographical locations of the main Protestant populations.  The problem is that those sell-outs voted FOR the other counties to be lumped in.  The people of South Derry, South Armagh, the bogside - every bit as Irish (and more) as those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'.  When you think about it, it's no wonder the gov't in the 26 are such a shower of self-serving pricks.  The whole entity was formed by such creatures.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 21, 2015, 03:35:49 AM
Would there ever be a situation whereby the brits would give up the north? It's bound to have crossed their minds with the problems it causes them. Self Inflicted of course. Some crying from the unionists then. Can't see it happening but how fantastic would that be!

I genuinely don't believe they want it, its a noose around their neck, only for northern unionists I think they would have got rid of it long ago.
The Brits are very decent in hanging onto the north. Not even a mother could love it.
They have a strong sense of responsibility in subsidising the place.

Yep, a lot more decent that our brethren in the 26 who were more than happy to cut it loose.

Don't forget - before that little faux pas by our blueshirt friends, the economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland was Belfast.

The shipyards would have closed regardless.

Very possibly, but without the years of malfunction that was brought about by the partition of the country, who's to say something else wouldn't have replaced it.
Are there any examples of other cities in the UK that have gone on to prosper after having their main industry decimated? I think of places like Liverpool and Glasgow and think call centres  ::)

In a united country, why would the north have fared any worse (or any better) than any other region in Ireland, no matter what parliament was pulling the strings?

Had the country stayed under British rule, the north would have received a greater slice of the goodies from Westminster, I don't think anyone would logically argue with that.

Had we become one entity, ruled from Dublin, why would the north not have gotten it's share of the tech/pharma/financial influx, in the same manner that, say, Cork did?

The only reason the economy of the north is in the state it is in currently, is the blueshirt's border.


Edit... the north is not a city....
It's the border of Protestant Antrim and North Down. The other 4 counties were thrown in for ballast. The blueshirts had zero leverage.
Dev for all his republican bluster did nothing about it.
The Border Commission never met either.

I'm well aware of the geographical locations of the main Protestant populations.  The problem is that those sell-outs voted FOR the other counties to be lumped in.  The people of South Derry, South Armagh, the bogside - every bit as Irish (and more) as those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'.  When you think about it, it's no wonder the gov't in the 26 are such a shower of self-serving pricks.  The whole entity was formed by such creatures.

Tyrone discriminination
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on November 21, 2015, 07:15:37 AM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: deiseach on November 21, 2015, 07:16:13 AM
If you could offer 'Britain' a binary choice between having or not having sovereignty over the North, I think they'd take it. My wife is always fulminating against the perfidious Jocks, but she went awful quiet when it looked like they might leave the Union. The end of The United Kingdom would be too much to bear.

Would the Tories et al focus on trying to keep NI in the UK, like they did with Scotland, if a referendum ever comes to pass??

I have no doubt they would. And even with Jeremy Corbyn in charge, so would Labour. Very few politicians are going to want to find themselves on the same side as Gerry Adams.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 21, 2015, 07:28:44 AM
If you could offer 'Britain' a binary choice between having or not having sovereignty over the North, I think they'd take it. My wife is always fulminating against the perfidious Jocks, but she went awful quiet when it looked like they might leave the Union. The end of The United Kingdom would be too much to bear.

Would the Tories et al focus on trying to keep NI in the UK, like they did with Scotland, if a referendum ever comes to pass??

I have no doubt they would. And even with Jeremy Corbyn in charge, so would Labour. Very few politicians are going to want to find themselves on the same side as Gerry Adams.

Which is why Gerry Adams is not going to leading the way on this one. A new figure needs to emerge, an economically literate one who has no association with the war.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: cadhlancian on November 21, 2015, 09:14:43 AM
Eternal victims? Slide the f**k on Muppet!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
Eternal victims? Slide the f**k on Muppet!

Have you read many of Franko's posts?

Did you miss the 'constant abuse' part of the sentence?

Did you miss the quote from Franko that I posted?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 09:26:33 AM
If you could offer 'Britain' a binary choice between having or not having sovereignty over the North, I think they'd take it. My wife is always fulminating against the perfidious Jocks, but she went awful quiet when it looked like they might leave the Union. The end of The United Kingdom would be too much to bear.

Would the Tories et al focus on trying to keep NI in the UK, like they did with Scotland, if a referendum ever comes to pass??

I have no doubt they would. And even with Jeremy Corbyn in charge, so would Labour. Very few politicians are going to want to find themselves on the same side as Gerry Adams.

Funny how Corbyn seems to have been embraced by some of those win Ireland.

http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Farnham/ (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Farnham/)

The recently departed workhouse master, James Sargeant (the great-great-grandfather of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn), in post for fourteen years, was described as having been despotic while the Board of Guardians had been totally ineffectual.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 21, 2015, 09:56:24 AM
Hard to see anyone uniting with the Frankos of this world.
If we're all to be judged on the actions of our great grandfathers Muppet.....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: gallsman on November 21, 2015, 10:16:27 AM
It's the same mindset to unity as others have had towards Unionists (big U) in the north. This for example:

No wonder this country is fucked,  if we're not fighting the brits we're fighting each other!!!  The Fighting Irish....ye can't beat it!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

No man left behind....that's the irish way eh?  ::)

More like the "I'm alright Jack" mentality we've come to know and love. Free Staters know nothing else but love to sit on their soapbox and tell those they left behind that they are out of order.

People like Rossfan would re-join the commonwealth in a heartbeat if there was a few quid in it for them.

You sell the idea of unity to them so well.
were folks supposed to be 'selling' unity to unionists/loyalists on the poppy thread?

only selling here was 'selling out' !!   :)

Basically, "we were wronged in the past, f**k the rest of toy and your opinions". The same people who label others as stoops, or free staters, or blueshirts in one breath rave about the united Ireland they're entitled to with the next. As long as it's on their terms.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 10:52:03 AM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

We'll have less of the ad hominem stuff Muppet please.  Not everyone in the country was as I described above. For the ones that were, I stand by what I said. Maybe you'd want to discuss what part of what I said was wrong instead of throwing insults from your side of the border?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 21, 2015, 10:52:40 AM
In a nutshell Gallsman.
Presumably with one party rule and all Unionists/ stoops/ free staters/ sellerouters and other undesirables stripped of citizenship and forced to wear a big red high vis jacket any time they dare to go out in public.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 10:55:16 AM
In a nutshell Gallsman.
Presumably with one party rule and all Unionists/ stoops/ free staters/ sellerouters and other undesirables stripped of citizenship and forced to wear a big red high vis jacket any time they dare to go out in public.

Yeah, that's it. If you have try to discredit what people are saying by blatantly making stuff up, it speaks volumes for your argument.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:26:56 AM
If you could offer 'Britain' a binary choice between having or not having sovereignty over the North, I think they'd take it. My wife is always fulminating against the perfidious Jocks, but she went awful quiet when it looked like they might leave the Union. The end of The United Kingdom would be too much to bear.

Would the Tories et al focus on trying to keep NI in the UK, like they did with Scotland, if a referendum ever comes to pass??

I have no doubt they would. And even with Jeremy Corbyn in charge, so would Labour. Very few politicians are going to want to find themselves on the same side as Gerry Adams.

Which is why Gerry Adams is not going to leading the way on this one. A new figure needs to emerge, an economically literate one who has no association with the war.

I honestly think that the whole of Sinn Fein need to step away from the lead on this one. Even a new leader, with no personal attachment to the war will still be SF and therefore impossible for some to vote for.  The push for a UI needs to come from a combined group of political parties, with a common vision and with a leader who commands respect from a large percentage of the electorate. I realise that I've provided very few facts here but I do know that most northern unionists (and a sizeable portion of the electorate in the 26) will NEVER vote for something that Sinn Fein are at the head of.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:53:42 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 01:01:56 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 21, 2015, 01:13:08 PM
a united Ireland would bring advantages of scale and the cross exchange of ideas would bring efficiencies. the only problem would be the status of Unionists . Given the GFA which gave a role for the 26 counties in NI it's hard to see how the Brits would give up their role entirely.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 21, 2015, 02:18:53 PM
Obviously the former Unionists ( probably then be known as the " Ulster British") will have to have the option of British citizenship as well as Irish in the new All Ireland entity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:20:43 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 02:28:58 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

Why didn't you fight?

The Anti-Treaty people would surely have joined you. Why didn't they fight in the 6 counties anyway?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:37:08 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

Why didn't you fight?

The Anti-Treaty people would surely have joined you. Why didn't they fight in the 6 counties anyway?

I thought you weren't allowed to do that?  I though that made you "no better" than the oppressors?

The oppressors who, incidentally, your former comrades had joined forces with to ensure that the vote was embraced by the people.  This was the same empire who had ignored the democratic will of the people a few years previously and you are blustering about how this vote had to be accepted?  An outstanding bit of moral contortionism.

Oblige me here muppet, what way do you think you would have voted?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 02:54:34 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

Why didn't you fight?

The Anti-Treaty people would surely have joined you. Why didn't they fight in the 6 counties anyway?

I thought you weren't allowed to do that?  I though that made you "no better" than the oppressors?

The oppressors who, incidentally, your former comrades had joined forces with to ensure that the vote was embraced by the people.  This was the same empire who had ignored the democratic will of the people a few years previously and you are blustering about how this vote had to be accepted?  An outstanding bit of moral contortionism.

Oblige me here muppet, what way do you think you would have voted?

I am asking you, the one who bravely calls dead people treacherous cowards, why your people didn't fight?

But I am glad you agree with me that Irish killing Irish are no better than Brits killing Irish. And possibly worse.


As for the vote, today, knowing what I know, I would have voted no. But who knows how I would have voted then.

I would probably have been struggling to survive in the poorest part of the poorest country in Ireland. I would have hated the country that put me in that situation, but the thought of going off any dying for people who might call me a treacherous coward, probably wouldn't have appealed to me much. I might have thought of emigrating to get the feck out of the place. Just like around half of my ancestors who had come west to escape the crap in Ulster. Of course it is easy to forget any of the context today.

 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 03:47:23 PM
Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic.  ;D ;D

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment.  ;D

Yeah, sure it was!  ;)

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

Why didn't you fight?

The Anti-Treaty people would surely have joined you. Why didn't they fight in the 6 counties anyway?

I thought you weren't allowed to do that?  I though that made you "no better" than the oppressors?

The oppressors who, incidentally, your former comrades had joined forces with to ensure that the vote was embraced by the people.  This was the same empire who had ignored the democratic will of the people a few years previously and you are blustering about how this vote had to be accepted?  An outstanding bit of moral contortionism.

Oblige me here muppet, what way do you think you would have voted?

I am asking you, the one who bravely calls dead people treacherous cowards, why your people didn't fight?

But I am glad you agree with me that Irish killing Irish are no better than Brits killing Irish. And possibly worse.


As for the vote, today, knowing what I know, I would have voted no. But who knows how I would have voted then.

I would probably have been struggling to survive in the poorest part of the poorest country in Ireland. I would have hated the country that put me in that situation, but the thought of going off any dying for people who might call me a treacherous coward, probably wouldn't have appealed to me much. I might have thought of emigrating to get the feck out of the place. Just like around half of my ancestors who had come west to escape the crap in Ulster. Of course it is easy to forget any of the context today.

You must think you know me muppet?  I don't believe we've been introduced.  I'm not going to start detailing the actions of my people on this board, but what I will say is that, unlike a lot, I'd be proud of the way they behaved.  And you can throw out whatever mumbling platitiudes you like about 'dead people', I stand by my comments.

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 21, 2015, 03:56:55 PM
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country. (http://And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.)

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 21, 2015, 04:21:54 PM
I was in Belfast a while ago on the Falls and was looking at an IRA memorial with the names of dead IRA wallahs and the dates went from the early twenties via the odd one in between to another big contingent starting 1969. And what was striking was the ones who died in the early 20s, for a hopeless cause given the decisions made in London and accepted in Dublin. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 21, 2015, 04:34:47 PM
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country. (http://And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.)

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.  ::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 21, 2015, 08:37:08 PM
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trileacman on November 21, 2015, 08:50:11 PM
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


In a democracy that is still worth f**k all
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 21, 2015, 09:04:55 PM
In a democracy that is still worth f**k all

Meaning...?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Ulick on November 22, 2015, 12:28:51 AM
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


In a democracy that is still worth f**k all

In a theocracy it would be worth f**k all but in a modern all-Ireland state northern unionists for be natural allies for Fine Gael and vice versa. Their influence would reach way beyond the numerical strength of the community in which they traditionally fish. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 22, 2015, 01:08:20 AM
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country. (http://And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.)

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.  ::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 22, 2015, 01:40:13 AM
In a theocracy it would be worth f**k all but in a modern all-Ireland state northern unionists for be natural allies for Fine Gael and vice versa. Their influence would reach way beyond the numerical strength of the community in which they traditionally fish.

This is true, the Labour party is generally no more than 10%, but plays an important role as kingmaker.
That said, it wouldn't be a very "united" Ireland if there was some sort of sectarian unionist party continuing for a long period.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 22, 2015, 01:08:46 PM
What sort of industries/services does the North have these days ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 22, 2015, 01:09:27 PM
It would be an All Ireland state with special arrangements for the North East for reasons we all know too well.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 23, 2015, 09:12:30 AM
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country. (http://And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.)

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.  ::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 23, 2015, 09:26:43 AM
I'm not sure exchanging insults about decisions made nearly 100 years ago is a progressive way to discuss a UI. Partition was not expected to last so long, not even by Unionists. But here we are. Reunification will happen but probably not within the next 15 years. It will happen as wounds heal, protagonists die off and the UK government cuts funding and reduces the public sector here, it will also become apparent to the agri-food sector and farming communities that within the EU the North's interests are not the same as the UK's. In addition the two communities in the north will see mistrust and barriers disappear with time. But to help as nationalists we need to begin to formulate an idea of what a UI would look like and how it can be achieved.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 23, 2015, 11:17:10 AM
Very sensible post Apples.
Can't do anything about the past so start looking to the future.
And Franko just chill out a bit FFS.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on November 23, 2015, 12:34:25 PM
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country. (http://And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.)

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.  ::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

So in the choice of "an immediate and terrible war" or the "freedom to win freedom" you would have chosen war?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyboard Warrior on November 23, 2015, 12:37:56 PM
What sort of industries/services does the North have these days ?

Call centres
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: gallsman on November 23, 2015, 12:39:02 PM
What sort of industries/services does the North have these days ?

Call centres

There's a good bit of, ah, pharmaceuticals and private hire security available about too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: illdecide on November 23, 2015, 12:45:26 PM
Apparently we're good and turning Red & Green Diesel clear... :P

On a sensible note we're the one Island and I'd be pretty sure we have the same industries or similar North & South
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 23, 2015, 01:02:32 PM
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country. (http://And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.)

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.  ::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

Let me get his right.

You think because you call someone a treacherous coward, it is a 'fact'?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 23, 2015, 01:43:50 PM
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country. (http://And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.)

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.  ::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

Let me get his right.

You think because you call someone a treacherous coward, it is a 'fact'?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

The facts are not in dispute.  That's how they behaved.  It may be unpalatable for you but it doesn't change what happened.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 04:30:51 PM
The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 23, 2015, 04:34:46 PM
The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.
+1.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 23, 2015, 04:41:36 PM
The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.

If it looks like a duck...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 05:11:27 PM
The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.

If it looks like a duck...

Ah well your delving into philosophy now, and deviating from the standard of what has become generally accepted.

Which Im cool with BTW, anything and everything is possible as far as I am concerned.... Muppet might not like it tho
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 23, 2015, 07:19:23 PM
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country. (http://And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.)

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.  ::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

So in the choice of "an immediate and terrible war" or the "freedom to win freedom" you would have chosen war?

No. 1
That phrase was never used.  The man who Lloyd George was supposed to have said that to has confined this and his negotiation notes do not record it.

No. 2
The 'freedom to win freedom'.  Don't make me laugh! That turned out well for the people of the North didn't it?

Even taking those two statements at face value, I most certainly would have voted no.  1 year previously the British had created a deliberately gerrymandered parliament in the north to ensure that the pro-British people would always have a ruling majority over their Nationalist neighbours.  If their actions over the previous few centuries wasn't already enough, would this not have made it clear to you what their intentions were towards the 6 counties?  They ensured that 'freedom to win freedom' would only ever be a pipe dream. The blueshirts knew this full well, but still they sold it to the people.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 23, 2015, 07:51:00 PM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:46:57 PM
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505)

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00

The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the my view that a united ireland is not currently viable

Fixed that for ye
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 23, 2015, 10:52:33 PM
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

But, as threads in here show, the present debate on the matter is incredibly fact free and immature and any attempt at organising the issues into some sort of rational form can only help.

It would particularly help if the biggest so called "nationalist" party in NI realised that they need to increase private economic activity and reduce public expenditure and waste if there is ever to be a UI. Ireland won't be united this year or next, building work is needed and this must be done.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Kidder81 on November 23, 2015, 10:53:29 PM
Turns out it was basically a SF commissioned "study"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:08:56 PM
Turns out it was basically a SF commissioned "study"

So does that mean its decommissioned?

I'll get me coat
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:44:04 AM
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

But, as threads in here show, the present debate on the matter is incredibly fact free and immature and any attempt at organising the issues into some sort of rational form can only help.

It would particularly help if the biggest so called "nationalist" party in NI realised that they need to increase private economic activity and reduce public expenditure and waste if there is ever to be a UI. Ireland won't be united this year or next, building work is needed and this must be done.

Nail on the head.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 24, 2015, 03:43:38 AM
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505)

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00

The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the my view that a united ireland is not currently viable

Fixed that for ye
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

What the study "tries" to do is shed some light on the viability or otherwise of Irish unity, and it seems to be a resounding yes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the treaty was passed by a majority in the Dail 64-57.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 24, 2015, 11:19:10 AM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?
The Ulster Covenant and the gun running in 1912 was designed to send a message to everyone about home rule. 
http://www.proni.gov.uk/index/search_the_archives/ulster_covenant.htm

Who would have fought the Covenanters ? Devalera ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 24, 2015, 11:56:09 AM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

More opinion by a closed mind.

Fact - over 60% of the "people of the north" didn't want any hand act or part in a free or home rule All Ireland
Fact - the anti Treatyites were opposed to the Oath of allegaince and the fact that the proposed Irish Free State would be a self governing British Dominion rather than an Independent Republic. That's what the Civil war was fought over - not the Status of the North Eastern 6 Counties.
Question - how was a ramshackle army of half trained and badly armed guerillas going to invade and overcome a well armed similar army of Unionists and the army of the biggest Empire in the World?
Opinion - Many thousands of lives would be lost and we would have ended up with a "Southern Ireland" of either 23 or 26 Counties with a local devolved administration as proposed by the Brits' Government of Ireland Act 1920. We would all still be British Citizens and would all be only entitled to British Nationality.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Denn Forever on November 24, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
Don't know how feasable it will be when there  is such furore about having a civic  reception for the Northern Irish and Rep of Ireland teams for getting to Euro 2016 in Belfast?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: deiseach on November 24, 2015, 12:18:51 PM
Don't know how feasable it will be when there  is such furore about having a civic  reception for the Northern Irish and Rep of Ireland teams for getting to Euro 2016 in Belfast?

I had to laugh out loud at the contribution of 'LordColeraine' over on the Telegraph story about this (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/row-over-belfast-reception-for-republic-and-northern-ireland-euro-2016-football-teams-34228044.html):

Quote
This is disgraceful inviting players from the Occupied 26 counties into Free Ulster. I wouldn't have a t**g about the place, especially not in Belfast City Hall where our glorious leader, Lord Edward Carson, signed the magnificent Ulster Covenant. This binds us to resist Dublin rule by any means necessary. If the SDLP, Sinn Fein and their republican counterparts in the Alliance Party/IRA bring these louts to Ulster, I shall have no choice but to wait outside City Hall and fling cream pies at them. They won't be laughing when they're covered in my cream.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Not based in reality so not very good.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:28:29 PM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Not based in reality so not very good.

Fanatical adherence to dogma is the bane of modern society.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 01:32:55 PM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Not based in reality so not very good.

Fanatical adherence to dogma is the bane of modern society.

Are both these statements facts or opinions?

And again muppet, can we please have less of the ad hominem attacks.  It's getting tiresome.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 01:36:22 PM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

More opinion by a closed mind.

Fact - over 60% of the "people of the north" didn't want any hand act or part in a free or home rule All Ireland
Fact - the anti Treatyites were opposed to the Oath of allegaince and the fact that the proposed Irish Free State would be a self governing British Dominion rather than an Independent Republic. That's what the Civil war was fought over - not the Status of the North Eastern 6 Counties.
Question - how was a ramshackle army of half trained and badly armed guerillas going to invade and overcome a well armed similar army of Unionists and the army of the biggest Empire in the World?
Opinion - Many thousands of lives would be lost and we would have ended up with a "Southern Ireland" of either 23 or 26 Counties with a local devolved administration as proposed by the Brits' Government of Ireland Act 1920. We would all still be British Citizens and would all be only entitled to British Nationality.

Unless you can provide sources, your two "facts" are also opinions.  I don't believe a survey of the anti treatyites was ever conducted asking why they were fighting?

As for your question, the same "ramshackle army" had got things that far.

You opinion I'll counter with a fact.  Many thousands of lives were lost, but only in the north of course.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:42:21 PM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Not based in reality so not very good.

Fanatical adherence to dogma is the bane of modern society.

Are both these statements facts or opinions?

And again muppet, can we please have less of the ad hominem attacks.  It's getting tiresome.

First of all it is one statement.

Secondly, it is clearly an opinion.

Thirdly I was thinking of ISIS, the NRA, and any terrorist organisation you can think of, the Catholic's reaction to clerical abuse, etc, etc. Look at what is gong on in the world.

It isn't all about you.




Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 01:54:07 PM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Not based in reality so not very good.

Fanatical adherence to dogma is the bane of modern society.

Are both these statements facts or opinions?

And again muppet, can we please have less of the ad hominem attacks.  It's getting tiresome.

First of all it is one statement.

Secondly, it is clearly an opinion.

Thirdly I was thinking of ISIS, the NRA, and any terrorist organisation you can think of, the Catholic's reaction to clerical abuse, etc, etc. Look at what is gong on in the world.

It isn't all about you.

I clearly quoted both you and easytiger.

It isn't all about you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:58:09 PM
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Not based in reality so not very good.

Fanatical adherence to dogma is the bane of modern society.

Are both these statements facts or opinions?

And again muppet, can we please have less of the ad hominem attacks.  It's getting tiresome.

First of all it is one statement.

Secondly, it is clearly an opinion.

Thirdly I was thinking of ISIS, the NRA, and any terrorist organisation you can think of, the Catholic's reaction to clerical abuse, etc, etc. Look at what is gong on in the world.

It isn't all about you.

I clearly quoted both you and easytiger.

It isn't all about you.

Nope, you quoted my post. And you named me only.

My post quoted easytiger95's post.

He quoted yours. Etc.

See how it works?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 24, 2015, 03:06:12 PM
Can the mods gat that Franko eejit off the scene till we have a serious adult discussion about the future please ??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post.  You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Can the mods gat that Franko eejit off the scene till we have a serious adult discussion about the future please ??

I don't believe I'm stopping you discussing anything.  But yes, by all means, run and tell the teacher.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on November 24, 2015, 03:50:39 PM
Can the mods gat that Franko eejit off the scene till we have a serious adult discussion about the future please ??

I don't believe I'm stopping you discussing anything.  But yes, by all means, run and tell the teacher.

He must be out of primary school early today. His folks should get parental controls set up on the family PC or hide the 16k Modem from the kiddies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 24, 2015, 04:42:17 PM
How many nationalists have been killed in political violence since 1920 up north ?

And what generational changes have been experienced by nationalists since 1920 to get to where they are today ie mostly happy to stay with the current system.

Franko and Muppet can you go into the lounge and sort it out there ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:45:51 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

And you know what thought did...  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:46:39 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

And you know what thought did...  ;)

Yea. He thought an opinion was a fact.  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 24, 2015, 05:55:45 PM
Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

You are conflating two issues. 'Freedom to win freedom' worked perfectly well, your concern is with the ending of partition. In reality the new Saorstat government might have taken more interest in the North, the boundary commission, council of Ireland etc, but in order to free the North the irregulars seized Kerry which was no help whatsoever.

Freedom to win freedom created a State in the 26 counties more prosperous and successful than the 6 county one, but people whose grandfathers were nationalists now can't be bothered working to unite the island.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Maguire01 on November 24, 2015, 06:15:21 PM
Turns out it was basically a SF commissioned "study"
Yes, exposed on Slugger. So it was only ever going to give one answer, or it would never have seen the light of day?

And i'm no economist, but the extent to which it was based on current currency exchange rates seemed to make it all a bit susceptible to any swing in these rates.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on November 24, 2015, 06:15:29 PM
Freedom to win freedom created a State in the 26 counties more prosperous and successful than the 6 county one, but people whose grandfathers were nationalists now can't be bothered working to unite the island.

Freestaters?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 07:00:43 PM
Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

You are conflating two issues. 'Freedom to win freedom' worked perfectly well, your concern is with the ending of partition. In reality the new Saorstat government might have taken more interest in the North, the boundary commission, council of Ireland etc, but in order to free the North the irregulars seized Kerry which was no help whatsoever.

Freedom to win freedom created a State in the 26 counties more prosperous and successful than the 6 county one, but people whose grandfathers were nationalists now can't be bothered working to unite the island.

We seem to be better at splits than uniting.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 07:50:29 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

And you know what thought did...  ;)

Yea. He thought an opinion was a fact.  ;D

Or that putting a smiley face at the end of a sentence made it funny...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 08:12:09 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

And you know what thought did...  ;)

Yea. He thought an opinion was a fact.  ;D

Or that putting a smiley face at the end of a sentence made it funny...

Like the last bit in bold?  :D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 08:26:38 PM
Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything.  ;D ;D

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post. You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

What exactly are you claiming that I didn't read?

Stop, you're making it worse.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer that without looking foolish.  ;D

And you know what thought did...  ;)

Yea. He thought an opinion was a fact.  ;D

Or that putting a smiley face at the end of a sentence made it funny...

Like the last bit in bold?  :D

No, not like that at all actually.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 08:42:30 PM

No, not like that at all actually.

Why is that? Are they not both smileys? Or is your comment: 'And you know what thought did...' not meant to be funny?

I know I heard it before, probably around 6th class.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 09:12:58 PM

No, not like that at all actually.

Why is that? Are they not both smileys? Or is your comment: 'And you know what thought did...' not meant to be funny?

I know I heard it before, probably around 6th class.

I think the term is emoticon actually.  It's a bit of a play on words but the bottom line is that they are used to convey a range of emotions.  You'll notice that, as I've already pointed out, the one I used is quite different to your 5 (on this page, of this thread).

You seem to use these quite regularly across most threads.  What's the cue for dropping one in?  Is it when you think you've landed a proverbial killer blow on one of your adversaries?  Or do you just think that what you're saying is just really funny and you'd like to tell everyone else to find it funny too?  It's just that I don't see too many others joining in on the laughter where your posts are concerned?  Maybe you could enlighten me?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 09:37:52 PM

No, not like that at all actually.

Why is that? Are they not both smileys? Or is your comment: 'And you know what thought did...' not meant to be funny?

I know I heard it before, probably around 6th class.

 ;D It's a bit of a play on words but the bottom line is that they are used to convey a range of emotions.  You'll notice that, as I've already pointed out, the one I used is quite different to your 5 (on this page, of this thread).

You seem to use these quite regularly across most threads.  What's the cue for dropping one in?  Is it when you think you've landed a proverbial killer blow on one of your adversaries?  Or do you just think that what you're saying is just really funny and you'd like to tell everyone else to find it funny too?  It's just that I don't see too many others joining in on the laughter where your posts are concerned?  Maybe you could enlighten me?

Brilliant, you finally found Google.

And now we have a fact or two.

However, YOU used the word Smiley, as you can see below. You were correct, as smiley is also a perfectly acceptable word. The problem is I suspect you thought a smiley only referred to something with a smile. But at least this time you checked your facts and found that they were both smileys. Which of course didn't suit the hole you had just dug.

Hence your jump to the word 'emoticon'. But they are both also emoticons so that word changes nothing.

Quote
Or that putting a smiley face at the end of a sentence made it funny..

You see, they are both 'smiley' faces. And you finally figured that out.  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:14:06 PM

No, not like that at all actually.

Why is that? Are they not both smileys? Or is your comment: 'And you know what thought did...' not meant to be funny?

I know I heard it before, probably around 6th class.

 ;D It's a bit of a play on words but the bottom line is that they are used to convey a range of emotions.  You'll notice that, as I've already pointed out, the one I used is quite different to your 5 (on this page, of this thread).

You seem to use these quite regularly across most threads.  What's the cue for dropping one in?  Is it when you think you've landed a proverbial killer blow on one of your adversaries?  Or do you just think that what you're saying is just really funny and you'd like to tell everyone else to find it funny too?  It's just that I don't see too many others joining in on the laughter where your posts are concerned?  Maybe you could enlighten me?

Brilliant, you finally found Google.

And now we have a fact or two.

However, YOU used the word Smiley, as you can see below. You were correct, as smiley is also a perfectly acceptable word. The problem is I suspect you thought a smiley only referred to something with a smile. But at least this time you checked your facts and found that they were both smileys. Which of course didn't suit the hole you had just dug.

Hence your jump to the word 'emoticon'. But they are both also emoticons so that word changes nothing.

Quote
Or that putting a smiley face at the end of a sentence made it funny..

You see, they are both 'smiley' faces. And you finally figured that out.  ;D

A wonderful lesson.  Unfortunately, the predominant feature of the one I used was a wink (not a w**k, calm down, step away from the Kleenex), which makes it very different to the one you so regularly employ.  This being the obvious case, your wonderful lesson is rendered bullshit.  I'm sorry that you wasted your time, when realisation of this basic truth would have saved you the bother.

Now, back to those questions I was asking - how do the rest of us know when to add in one of these faces?  Being such a general authority on everything, I'm sure you'll be fit to give us a few answers...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on November 24, 2015, 10:24:55 PM
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505)

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00

The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the my view that a united ireland is not currently viable

Fixed that for ye
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

What the study "tries" to do is shed some light on the viability or otherwise of Irish unity, and it seems to be a resounding yes.

Resounding??

Talk me through the downsides that it examines? Anything is viable if you only look at the positives, assume they will all fall nicely into place and ignore any negatives, underperformances or even simple things like costs and practical realities by brushing them under the carpet with throw-away phrases like an assumption of "a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 11:05:51 PM

No, not like that at all actually.

Why is that? Are they not both smileys? Or is your comment: 'And you know what thought did...' not meant to be funny?

I know I heard it before, probably around 6th class.

 ;D It's a bit of a play on words but the bottom line is that they are used to convey a range of emotions.  You'll notice that, as I've already pointed out, the one I used is quite different to your 5 (on this page, of this thread).

You seem to use these quite regularly across most threads.  What's the cue for dropping one in?  Is it when you think you've landed a proverbial killer blow on one of your adversaries?  Or do you just think that what you're saying is just really funny and you'd like to tell everyone else to find it funny too?  It's just that I don't see too many others joining in on the laughter where your posts are concerned?  Maybe you could enlighten me?

Brilliant, you finally found Google.

And now we have a fact or two.

However, YOU used the word Smiley, as you can see below. You were correct, as smiley is also a perfectly acceptable word. The problem is I suspect you thought a smiley only referred to something with a smile. But at least this time you checked your facts and found that they were both smileys. Which of course didn't suit the hole you had just dug.

Hence your jump to the word 'emoticon'. But they are both also emoticons so that word changes nothing.

Quote
Or that putting a smiley face at the end of a sentence made it funny..

You see, they are both 'smiley' faces. And you finally figured that out.  ;D

A wonderful lesson.  Unfortunately, the predominant feature of the one I used was a wink (not a w**k, calm down, step away from the Kleenex), which makes it very different to the one you so regularly employ.  This being the obvious case, your wonderful lesson is rendered bullshit.  I'm sorry that you wasted your time, when realisation of this basic truth would have saved you the bother.

Now, back to those questions I was asking - how do the rest of us know when to add in one of these faces?  Being such a general authority on everything, I'm sure you'll be fit to give us a few answers...

Are you are seriously arguing that a wink smiley is acceptable after a smart comment, but a smiling smiley isn't?

The mind boggles. But then you don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact, so maybe the mind is very boggled.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 24, 2015, 11:19:37 PM
What the study "tries" to do is shed some light on the viability or otherwise of Irish unity, and it seems to be a resounding yes.

Resounding??

Talk me through the downsides that it examines? Anything is viable if you only look at the positives, assume they will all fall nicely into place and ignore any negatives, underperformances or even simple things like costs and practical realities by brushing them under the carpet with throw-away phrases like an assumption of "a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions"

It does not provide a resounding yes, and however much some of us would like it to there is no point in pretending that it does.

There is a good discussion on SluggerOToole about this.

This does not provide a resounding yes, but it starts to scope out the issues. It is incumbent on people who purport to be nationalists to move things so that the next report shows a smaller gap and so on. As long as SF see it as their business to crank up public expenditure in NI then there can never be a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:19:52 PM

No, not like that at all actually.

Why is that? Are they not both smileys? Or is your comment: 'And you know what thought did...' not meant to be funny?

I know I heard it before, probably around 6th class.

 ;D It's a bit of a play on words but the bottom line is that they are used to convey a range of emotions.  You'll notice that, as I've already pointed out, the one I used is quite different to your 5 (on this page, of this thread).

You seem to use these quite regularly across most threads.  What's the cue for dropping one in?  Is it when you think you've landed a proverbial killer blow on one of your adversaries?  Or do you just think that what you're saying is just really funny and you'd like to tell everyone else to find it funny too?  It's just that I don't see too many others joining in on the laughter where your posts are concerned?  Maybe you could enlighten me?

Brilliant, you finally found Google.

And now we have a fact or two.

However, YOU used the word Smiley, as you can see below. You were correct, as smiley is also a perfectly acceptable word. The problem is I suspect you thought a smiley only referred to something with a smile. But at least this time you checked your facts and found that they were both smileys. Which of course didn't suit the hole you had just dug.

Hence your jump to the word 'emoticon'. But they are both also emoticons so that word changes nothing.

Quote
Or that putting a smiley face at the end of a sentence made it funny..

You see, they are both 'smiley' faces. And you finally figured that out.  ;D

A wonderful lesson.  Unfortunately, the predominant feature of the one I used was a wink (not a w**k, calm down, step away from the Kleenex), which makes it very different to the one you so regularly employ.  This being the obvious case, your wonderful lesson is rendered bullshit.  I'm sorry that you wasted your time, when realisation of this basic truth would have saved you the bother.

Now, back to those questions I was asking - how do the rest of us know when to add in one of these faces?  Being such a general authority on everything, I'm sure you'll be fit to give us a few answers...

Are you are seriously arguing that a wink smiley is acceptable after a smart comment, but a smiling smiley isn't?

The mind boggles. But then you don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact, so maybe the mind is very boggled.

Ah right, it's after you make a comment that you feel is 'smart'.  Good stuff.

Are you seriously arguing that all those things at the top have the same connotations no matter which one you use?

Actually, you know what. Please don't bother answering that.  I genuinely can't be bothered any more.  You seem (as I've noticed myself and as other posters have both experienced and pointed out) to have an insatiable desire to get the last word and will plumb any depths of pedantry to achieve this.  I, on the other hand, have reached my limit and don't have the time or inclination to continue this shite any longer.  No doubt you'll have some pithy reply followed by one of these little faces to retort with but ya know what, I'm cool with that. If it makes you go to bed feeling better about yourself, knock yourself out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 24, 2015, 11:30:50 PM
Jesus you have some opinion of yourself.

YOU are the one who started the comments about the smiley faces. I have no problem with them, just with people who use them and hypocritically complain about others using them.

But then this little subtext captures everything about your arguments.

YOU can say what you want, use what every device you want, smileys, presentation of opinions as 'facts', but for the rest of us - normal rules must apply.

And the thing is, it is so easy to pull your position apart.

Because it is dogma. Some one else's 90 year old dogma at that. So you will get easily offended, and upset at smileys because you can't defend your position from more than a few probing points. And thus we end up running into a meaningless cut-de-sac. Because you need to get away from any scrutiny of your original position. It is the same with Fearon and a few others. So when you speak for others and my 'insatiable desire to get the last word', what you mean is my insatiable desire to expose the shallowness of the dogmatists and their quicksand positions.

The smileys show you up perfectly in this regard.  :D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 25, 2015, 12:04:14 AM
Muppet, time you stopped answering th'eejit. Hopefully he'll go away then and let us adults have our discussion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: laoislad on November 25, 2015, 10:12:14 AM
Can the mods gat that Franko eejit off the scene till we have a serious adult discussion about the future please ??

I don't believe I'm stopping you discussing anything.  But yes, by all means, run and tell the teacher.
Just remember you won't get one after 3pm as they'll all be gone home.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 01:20:26 PM
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

But, as threads in here show, the present debate on the matter is incredibly fact free and immature and any attempt at organising the issues into some sort of rational form can only help.

It would particularly help if the biggest so called "nationalist" party in NI realised that they need to increase private economic activity and reduce public expenditure and waste if there is ever to be a UI. Ireland won't be united this year or next, building work is needed and this must be done.
Exactly!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 25, 2015, 01:26:57 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:43:50 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

That is fine, but it might look to an outsider to be as open and inclusive as a Trump rally.

I suspect I will get flamed for this, but, is there value in Martin McGuinness finding a way to do a Mandela? I know many will see it as no more than a publicity stunt, but imagery is everything to Unionists apparently, and sport is massive to us all.

Mandela got serious criticism, from his own supporters, for putting on the Springbok jersey but in hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The ideal might be to wear the soccer jersey to the Euros next year, but that might be just too hard to swallow for many Nationalists, never mind Republicans. I know McGuinness comes from a sporting family, his brothers both played soccer for Derry City and one of them played gaelic football for Derry. And I know he has attended Ulster Rugby games.

But would the Euros be a step too far?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 06:48:19 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

That is fine, but it might look to an outsider to be as open and inclusive as a Trump rally.

I suspect I will get flamed for this, but, is there value in Martin McGuinness finding a way to do a Mandela? I know many will see it as no more than a publicity stunt, but imagery is everything to Unionists apparently, and sport is massive to us all.

Mandela got serious criticism, from his own supporters, for putting on the Springbok jersey but in hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The ideal might be to wear the soccer jersey to the Euros next year, but that might be just too hard to swallow for many Nationalists, never mind Republicans. I know McGuinness comes from a sporting family, his brothers both played soccer for Derry City and one of them played gaelic football for Derry. And I know he has attended Ulster Rugby games.

But would the Euros be a step too far?
I doubt McGuinness would be prepared to go that far, I certainly wouldn't.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 26, 2015, 04:51:41 AM
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

They actually invite along unionist representatives to say their piece at these meetings.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 26, 2015, 04:57:46 AM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

I don't think nationalists vote purely on an economic basis, but the economic case is worth dealing with. People have always assumed that reunification would result in negative economic consequences, so it's worth challenging that.  However people don't generally vote with their heads, they vote with their hearts. As long as unionists feel uncomfortable stepping out of the UK on an emotional level, no amount of economic arguments are going to persuade them to do so. That's got to be the next step in the discussion. How do we deal with matters of identity and help unionists become more comfortable throwing in their lot with the rest of the people on the island? I'll tell you one thing that's not going to help: the constant Brit-bashing and harking back to the past that comes from certain republican quarters.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 26, 2015, 06:15:44 AM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

That is fine, but it might look to an outsider to be as open and inclusive as a Trump rally.

I suspect I will get flamed for this, but, is there value in Martin McGuinness finding a way to do a Mandela? I know many will see it as no more than a publicity stunt, but imagery is everything to Unionists apparently, and sport is massive to us all.

Mandela got serious criticism, from his own supporters, for putting on the Springbok jersey but in hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The ideal might be to wear the soccer jersey to the Euros next year, but that might be just too hard to swallow for many Nationalists, never mind Republicans. I know McGuinness comes from a sporting family, his brothers both played soccer for Derry City and one of them played gaelic football for Derry. And I know he has attended Ulster Rugby games.

But would the Euros be a step too far?
I doubt McGuinness would be prepared to go that far, I certainly wouldn't.

I think it would be a spot on gesture to do. We are crying out for something like that since the ceasefires. Although it might have been more on the cards if the Rep had not qualified
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 26, 2015, 08:06:01 AM
I don't think nationalists vote purely on an economic basis, but the economic case is worth dealing with. People have always assumed that reunification would result in negative economic consequences, so it's worth challenging that.  However people don't generally vote with their heads, they vote with their hearts. As long as unionists feel uncomfortable stepping out of the UK on an emotional level, no amount of economic arguments are going to persuade them to do so.

Satisfactory economics is a prerequisite for serious discussion on other matters, as is some measure of competent economically literate nationalist leadership from someone not noted for bombing people.

Quote
That's got to be the next step in the discussion. How do we deal with matters of identity and help unionists become more comfortable throwing in their lot with the rest of the people on the island? I'll tell you one thing that's not going to help: the constant Brit-bashing and harking back to the past that comes from certain republican quarters.

The point that needs to be reiterated is that what is proposed is a united Ireland, not an Ireland run by the local cavemen in Sinn Féin. You have the negative contributions from the likes of Phil Flanagan with his ridiculous pro ISIS tweet, but people in Ireland generally think Phil Flanagan is an ar se.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 26, 2015, 01:59:34 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

That is fine, but it might look to an outsider to be as open and inclusive as a Trump rally.

I suspect I will get flamed for this, but, is there value in Martin McGuinness finding a way to do a Mandela? I know many will see it as no more than a publicity stunt, but imagery is everything to Unionists apparently, and sport is massive to us all.

Mandela got serious criticism, from his own supporters, for putting on the Springbok jersey but in hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The ideal might be to wear the soccer jersey to the Euros next year, but that might be just too hard to swallow for many Nationalists, never mind Republicans. I know McGuinness comes from a sporting family, his brothers both played soccer for Derry City and one of them played gaelic football for Derry. And I know he has attended Ulster Rugby games.

But would the Euros be a step too far?
I doubt McGuinness would be prepared to go that far, I certainly wouldn't.

I think it would be a spot on gesture to do. We are crying out for something like that since the ceasefires. Although it might have been more on the cards if the Rep had not qualified
That gives legitimacy to OWC which Republicans will not concede. This is a region of the UK or a part of Ireland under UK control or something in-between, depending on your view. Unionists would not give McGuinness any credit for a gesture such as this and it would give grist to the dissident mill. In fairness to McGuinness he has always been willing to congratulate OWCers on their successes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 26, 2015, 02:01:15 PM
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

They actually invite along unionist representatives to say their piece at these meetings.
The point I am making is that I am in need of convincing, but I would not go to a public SF meeting, and there are many in that boat.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 26, 2015, 02:52:20 PM
So putting on a 6 Co Soccer team jersey is " giving legitimacy to OWC which republicans will not concede".
However serving in a 6 Cos Administration is OK?
Ah well........... ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 26, 2015, 02:59:08 PM
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

They actually invite along unionist representatives to say their piece at these meetings.
The point I am making is that I am in need of convincing, but I would not go to a public SF meeting, and there are many in that boat.
Back in the god old days the 2 biggest parties were the SDLP and the UUP, both reasonably moderate
Since 97 or so the Shinners and the DUP have replaced them and there's a much bigger gap between those 2.
Yes vs No
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 26, 2015, 03:58:50 PM
So putting on a 6 Co Soccer team jersey is " giving legitimacy to OWC which republicans will not concede".
However serving in a 6 Cos Administration is OK?
Ah well........... ::)
You clearly do not understand the nuances.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: winghalfback on November 26, 2015, 05:09:54 PM
I suppose the way to think about a united Ireland is to think what kind of Ireland do you want?
Is is merely ok to want a 32 county socialist republic? What would this look like?
Would you just want the brits to upsticks and leave in the morning?
Would you want a new Ireland, an Ireland of equals no matter or creed or colour?
Do you want a federal Ireland?
Is it about your benefits that rules your decision?
Do the economics matter?
I guess for many is a united Ireland something you really want?

All these things have to be considered.
I my opinion there is alot of work to be done before my dream of a United Ireland can be achieved. We have as many if not more people to convince in the southern part of this small country as we have to convince in the northern 6 counties.
Firstly we have to achieve so sort of piece of mind regarding the past, it is a big issue on both sides of the divide, of which there were wrongs done by all parties. I would suggest a truth commission an amnesty if you like where victims and their families could avail of as much truth as possible regarding the terrible acts regarding their loved ones. I would say a commission where British and Irish Governments release all files on such incidents. I don't think we need to be looking for pressing charges on perpitrators but if we can get the truth out maybe we can move on. it wont help everyone but it will appease most.
Secondly we would have to look at the mechanisms of it all. This is a small island its barely 700 km long and 400 km wide. Does it make sense to have to of every single department needed to run a country of this size. Do we need 2 health, education, transport, social security, agriculture, sports, finance ministers departments sectors whatever you want to call it. Would it not be more beneficial to have one department dealing for say health for the whole island as it would be to have one minister to look after transport issues or agriculture. Surely financially it would be more beneficial at least.
We have to think about logistics regarding export and import we have to think about international links and we have to think about currency. Why have 2 separate currencies on such a small piece of land?
We have to convince our unionist brothers and sisters that these are all in their best intrests. They have to be made realise they would have a voice in our country. I firmly believe that A new Ireland equal to everyone would see a unionist type party holding some sort power I could see a FG DUP/UUP coalition on power. I think some unionist politicians are very progressive thinkers and would prosper in a role where they are decision makers of a new country and not having to look back to their master in london to agree their moves.
Sinn Fein are driving the New Ireland plan Eire Nua and they have to show people the wider public how it would work. People need convincing even now today. I dont believe they need to release exact figures for economic arguments but if they can show that their ideas are feaseable and possible then thats enough for now. it will help start the debate. Currently in their defence they are the only party or group coming up with any plan or idea on what they would like to see. Sdlp claim to be nationalist and want a united ireland but have no plans in place to decribe what they want this was evident when on the joint RTE BBC show a few weeks ago clare hanna was asked to sell the concept and she couldn't. The 1916 societies are calling for a referendum and have a petition out but they also do not decribe the Ireland they want to see. Because SF are the driving force on this issue at the minute does not mean they are to be in power but it does mean people who are interested in this topic must take their plans into consideration just like everyones plans must be taken into consideration.
I think all parties need to come together on this issue.  All these parties claim to have the same goal in mind they need to set up a joint venture regarding them all and plan the ireland they want and sell it to the public.
Issues such as flag national anthem national identity national security our stance on defence issues all these issues must be covered in this work.
This Ireland has to have top class health provision Top quality education for everyones needs the best universities top class roads and rail networks covering every part of the island. I must have aplan to be the best in every sector and we have to utilise our natural resources. I firmly believe there is plenty of wealth to make this country great. This country can sustain itself and be prosperous.
This is a very small part of what there is to think about but before people talk about this that and the other they need to have atleast considered all aspects. To some its a hard sell to others its a very easy selll.

Just an opinion sorry about the speling in places and im sure there are plenty of grammer issues too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 26, 2015, 05:22:29 PM
I doubt McGuinness would be prepared to go that far, I certainly wouldn't.

I can understand why he wouldn't. And I can understand why people wouldn't want him to do it.

But if anyone did it it would have to be him. He is in the relevant position and his family soccer & sports credentials are genuine.

Whatever we think of partition and the 700 years before that, the GFA is now the reference point. And out of that came the Northern Ireland Executive. I don't expect to see a DUP leader wearing a Tyrone/Armagh etc GAA shirt in Croke Park anytime soon. But it would be something to see.

It would be real leadership. But I see no one on the other side remotely capable of such leadership.

And on 'our' side of the house, McGuinness is the only man I think who could deliver something like that. Think Mandela.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 26, 2015, 05:33:47 PM
So putting on a 6 Co Soccer team jersey is " giving legitimacy to OWC which republicans will not concede".
However serving in a 6 Cos Administration is OK?
Ah well........... ::)

It is perfectly possibly to rationally recognise that there is a political issue which requires institutions to address while not supporting sporting division.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 26, 2015, 06:29:42 PM
I suppose the way to think about a united Ireland is to think what kind of Ireland do you want?
Is is merely ok to want a 32 county socialist republic? What would this look like?
Would you just want the brits to upsticks and leave in the morning?
Would you want a new Ireland, an Ireland of equals no matter or creed or colour?
Do you want a federal Ireland?
Is it about your benefits that rules your decision?
Do the economics matter?
I guess for many is a united Ireland something you really want?

All these things have to be considered.
I my opinion there is alot of work to be done before my dream of a United Ireland can be achieved. We have as many if not more people to convince in the southern part of this small country as we have to convince in the northern 6 counties.
Firstly we have to achieve so sort of piece of mind regarding the past, it is a big issue on both sides of the divide, of which there were wrongs done by all parties. I would suggest a truth commission an amnesty if you like where victims and their families could avail of as much truth as possible regarding the terrible acts regarding their loved ones. I would say a commission where British and Irish Governments release all files on such incidents. I don't think we need to be looking for pressing charges on perpitrators but if we can get the truth out maybe we can move on. it wont help everyone but it will appease most.
Secondly we would have to look at the mechanisms of it all. This is a small island its barely 700 km long and 400 km wide. Does it make sense to have to of every single department needed to run a country of this size. Do we need 2 health, education, transport, social security, agriculture, sports, finance ministers departments sectors whatever you want to call it. Would it not be more beneficial to have one department dealing for say health for the whole island as it would be to have one minister to look after transport issues or agriculture. Surely financially it would be more beneficial at least.
We have to think about logistics regarding export and import we have to think about international links and we have to think about currency. Why have 2 separate currencies on such a small piece of land?
We have to convince our unionist brothers and sisters that these are all in their best intrests. They have to be made realise they would have a voice in our country. I firmly believe that A new Ireland equal to everyone would see a unionist type party holding some sort power I could see a FG DUP/UUP coalition on power. I think some unionist politicians are very progressive thinkers and would prosper in a role where they are decision makers of a new country and not having to look back to their master in london to agree their moves.
Sinn Fein are driving the New Ireland plan Eire Nua and they have to show people the wider public how it would work. People need convincing even now today. I dont believe they need to release exact figures for economic arguments but if they can show that their ideas are feaseable and possible then thats enough for now. it will help start the debate. Currently in their defence they are the only party or group coming up with any plan or idea on what they would like to see. Sdlp claim to be nationalist and want a united ireland but have no plans in place to decribe what they want this was evident when on the joint RTE BBC show a few weeks ago clare hanna was asked to sell the concept and she couldn't. The 1916 societies are calling for a referendum and have a petition out but they also do not decribe the Ireland they want to see. Because SF are the driving force on this issue at the minute does not mean they are to be in power but it does mean people who are interested in this topic must take their plans into consideration just like everyones plans must be taken into consideration.
I think all parties need to come together on this issue.  All these parties claim to have the same goal in mind they need to set up a joint venture regarding them all and plan the ireland they want and sell it to the public.
Issues such as flag national anthem national identity national security our stance on defence issues all these issues must be covered in this work.
This Ireland has to have top class health provision Top quality education for everyones needs the best universities top class roads and rail networks covering every part of the island. I must have aplan to be the best in every sector and we have to utilise our natural resources. I firmly believe there is plenty of wealth to make this country great. This country can sustain itself and be prosperous.
This is a very small part of what there is to think about but before people talk about this that and the other they need to have atleast considered all aspects. To some its a hard sell to others its a very easy selll.

Just an opinion sorry about the speling in places and im sure there are plenty of grammer issues too.
It'll never be a socialist republic. Too many farmers.

I wonder could farming links be developed between north and south. It's all EU money after all !

Could unionists have better economic opportunities in a 32CR ?  Apparently lots of graduates end up working in Dublin. I was talking to a landowner a while ago in Down and he was very positive about the South. But how would you get loyalists and other poor Protestants onside?

What would be the most positive aspects of a 32CR ?

Things like the teaching of history would have to be sorted out. I remember going to Derry and some museum about the Siege from a Unionist perspective and it was hard to swallow.

Unionists could get some factor of votes say 1.25 for more say in the new Parliament.
The Dail is crap anyway. Far too much executive power.

A 32CR would be good for the 26 because it would involve improvement of a lot of the current institutions.
And that is really necessary.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 26, 2015, 07:17:18 PM
So putting on a 6 Co Soccer team jersey is " giving legitimacy to OWC which republicans will not concede".
However serving in a 6 Cos Administration is OK?
Ah well........... ::)

It is perfectly possibly to rationally recognise that there is a political issue which requires institutions to address while not supporting sporting division.

The FAI broke away from the other shower so in effect those who support the FAI team are supporting soccer division.

As for the future All Ireland political entity - one thing it won't be is a "32 County Democratic Socialist" Republic.
A Social Democratic agreed political entity will do me grand.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 26, 2015, 07:31:29 PM
The FAI broke away from the other shower so in effect those who support the FAI team are supporting soccer division.

I'm not up to speed on the history of this, but one thing is certain the Irish Football Association is opposed to Irish people. 

Quote
As for the future All Ireland political entity - one thing it won't be is a "32 County Democratic Socialist" Republic.
A Social Democratic agreed political entity will do me grand.

if it is democratic, then it will not be socialist in the looney SF sense.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 26, 2015, 10:10:50 PM
The FAI broke away from the other shower so in effect those who support the FAI team are supporting soccer division./quote]

I'm not up to speed on the history of this, but one thing is certain the Irish Football Association is opposed to Irish people. 

Quote
As for the future All Ireland political entity - one thing it won't be is a "32 County Democratic Socialist" Republic.
A Social Democratic agreed political entity will do me grand.

if it is democratic, then it will not be socialist in the looney SF sense.
The Shinners are in no way socialist. They are after power like everyone else.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Maguire01 on November 26, 2015, 10:50:35 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

That is fine, but it might look to an outsider to be as open and inclusive as a Trump rally.

I suspect I will get flamed for this, but, is there value in Martin McGuinness finding a way to do a Mandela? I know many will see it as no more than a publicity stunt, but imagery is everything to Unionists apparently, and sport is massive to us all.

Mandela got serious criticism, from his own supporters, for putting on the Springbok jersey but in hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The ideal might be to wear the soccer jersey to the Euros next year, but that might be just too hard to swallow for many Nationalists, never mind Republicans. I know McGuinness comes from a sporting family, his brothers both played soccer for Derry City and one of them played gaelic football for Derry. And I know he has attended Ulster Rugby games.

But would the Euros be a step too far?
Support Northern Ireland? They won't even say Northern Ireland!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 26, 2015, 10:55:32 PM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

That is fine, but it might look to an outsider to be as open and inclusive as a Trump rally.

I suspect I will get flamed for this, but, is there value in Martin McGuinness finding a way to do a Mandela? I know many will see it as no more than a publicity stunt, but imagery is everything to Unionists apparently, and sport is massive to us all.

Mandela got serious criticism, from his own supporters, for putting on the Springbok jersey but in hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The ideal might be to wear the soccer jersey to the Euros next year, but that might be just too hard to swallow for many Nationalists, never mind Republicans. I know McGuinness comes from a sporting family, his brothers both played soccer for Derry City and one of them played gaelic football for Derry. And I know he has attended Ulster Rugby games.

But would the Euros be a step too far?
Support Northern Ireland? They won't even say Northern Ireland!

It is hard to support the Good Friday Agreement and not recognise the jurisdictions contained in it: http://peacemaker.un.org/uk-ireland-good-friday98 (http://peacemaker.un.org/uk-ireland-good-friday98)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 27, 2015, 10:34:36 AM
It is noticeable that some people from the wee 6 on here are willing to honestly state that they would vote on a United Ireland mainly on an economic basis. That is fair enough and that is their right.

But why is it so unreasonable that people in the past voted, presumably to grab the peace on offer, and to end the years of war (WW1) and rebellion? Of course the irony is that that vote for peace, triggered yet another war.
As one of those from the wee 6 the most important consideration for me is an accommodation with unionism that avoids further conflict. Unionism is not close to that stage as yet. I don't believe that economics is an issue as the British Government imo in such circumstances would be generous in the short term for the long term gain of not having to deal with the north. As a previous poster has said the onus is very much on nationalism in general but SF in particular to lead the way. They need to start in there own community first rather than just focusing on outreach to unionists.

Is there anyone or any organisation putting anything out there, even just for discussion, on that subject?
The shinners have public meetings, but at these they are preaching to the converted. they need to engage more in smaller discussion groups with nationalist middleclasses.

That is fine, but it might look to an outsider to be as open and inclusive as a Trump rally.

I suspect I will get flamed for this, but, is there value in Martin McGuinness finding a way to do a Mandela? I know many will see it as no more than a publicity stunt, but imagery is everything to Unionists apparently, and sport is massive to us all.

Mandela got serious criticism, from his own supporters, for putting on the Springbok jersey but in hindsight it was a stroke of genius.

The ideal might be to wear the soccer jersey to the Euros next year, but that might be just too hard to swallow for many Nationalists, never mind Republicans. I know McGuinness comes from a sporting family, his brothers both played soccer for Derry City and one of them played gaelic football for Derry. And I know he has attended Ulster Rugby games.

But would the Euros be a step too far?
Support Northern Ireland? They won't even say Northern Ireland!
Some of the posts on here highlight in high definition the lack of understanding in the ROI of the folk memory of Northern Nationalists. When I say Northern Ireland on those rare occasions I have no choice it sticks in my throat and I'm no Shinner. Also the Executive is a regional devolved administration that does not require an outright acknowledgement that NI is a "country" which it is clearly not no matter what the OWCers say.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on November 27, 2015, 10:56:05 AM
I doubt McGuinness would be prepared to go that far, I certainly wouldn't.

I can understand why he wouldn't. And I can understand why people wouldn't want him to do it.

But if anyone did it it would have to be him. He is in the relevant position and his family soccer & sports credentials are genuine.

Whatever we think of partition and the 700 years before that, the GFA is now the reference point. And out of that came the Northern Ireland Executive. I don't expect to see a DUP leader wearing a Tyrone/Armagh etc GAA shirt in Croke Park anytime soon. But it would be something to see.

It would be real leadership. But I see no one on the other side remotely capable of such leadership.

And on 'our' side of the house, McGuinness is the only man I think who could deliver something like that. Think Mandela.

I'd be in total agreement with you on the point I highlighted, but why would this be such a big issue for unionists, yet Alex Maskey, Marty and Co can regularly attend cenotaph ceremonies etc etc!!

My thoughts on it are that Unionists still see the troubles as solely being caused by republicans and not one part of it was caused by their bigotry/actions/inactions at the time preceding years and during them.

I still find it galling that none of their political leadership has apologised to nationalists/republicans and to the general population at large for their behaviour during these times.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 27, 2015, 11:27:12 AM
I doubt McGuinness would be prepared to go that far, I certainly wouldn't.

I can understand why he wouldn't. And I can understand why people wouldn't want him to do it.

But if anyone did it it would have to be him. He is in the relevant position and his family soccer & sports credentials are genuine.

Whatever we think of partition and the 700 years before that, the GFA is now the reference point. And out of that came the Northern Ireland Executive. I don't expect to see a DUP leader wearing a Tyrone/Armagh etc GAA shirt in Croke Park anytime soon. But it would be something to see.

It would be real leadership. But I see no one on the other side remotely capable of such leadership.

And on 'our' side of the house, McGuinness is the only man I think who could deliver something like that. Think Mandela.

I'd be in total agreement with you on the point I highlighted, but why would this be such a big issue for unionists, yet Alex Maskey, Marty and Co can regularly attend cenotaph ceremonies etc etc!!

My thoughts on it are that Unionists still see the troubles as solely being caused by republicans and not one part of it was caused by their bigotry/actions/inactions at the time preceding years and during them.

I still find it galling that none of their political leadership has apologised to nationalists/republicans and to the general population at large for their behaviour during these times.
That's because they have a different reading of the past and their identity is wrapped around it. For Queen and country - neither the Queen nor the UK are much interested any more. They end up glorifying the Somme - I feel sorry for them.
 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on November 27, 2015, 12:04:22 PM
I doubt McGuinness would be prepared to go that far, I certainly wouldn't.

I can understand why he wouldn't. And I can understand why people wouldn't want him to do it.

But if anyone did it it would have to be him. He is in the relevant position and his family soccer & sports credentials are genuine.

Whatever we think of partition and the 700 years before that, the GFA is now the reference point. And out of that came the Northern Ireland Executive. I don't expect to see a DUP leader wearing a Tyrone/Armagh etc GAA shirt in Croke Park anytime soon. But it would be something to see.

It would be real leadership. But I see no one on the other side remotely capable of such leadership.

And on 'our' side of the house, McGuinness is the only man I think who could deliver something like that. Think Mandela.

I'd be in total agreement with you on the point I highlighted, but why would this be such a big issue for unionists, yet Alex Maskey, Marty and Co can regularly attend cenotaph ceremonies etc etc!!

My thoughts on it are that Unionists still see the troubles as solely being caused by republicans and not one part of it was caused by their bigotry/actions/inactions at the time preceding years and during them.

I still find it galling that none of their political leadership has apologised to nationalists/republicans and to the general population at large for their behaviour during these times.


Agreed, and this is another example of a group of people so up to their necks in their blinkered ideology that it is almost impossible to deal with them. That tail then creates fear and uncertainty among the wider Unionist dog, to justify their own existence. As far as I can see fleg protests and crap like that are not to defend anything, but to provoke.

Mandela must have worried that he risked doing a Neville Chamberlain when he wore the Springboks jersey and publicly declared his support for them. but he did it and it sent a really powerful message.

Michael Davitt and his movement got the land redistributed from landowners to the peasants. That would have have appeared unthinkable a few decades beforehand.

It doesn't have to be the jersey and it doesn't have to be McGuinness. It could be a smaller step. I sure someone can think of something else but I just think that Euro 2016 is a big opportunity.

 The GFA sets out a democratic road to a United Ireland. There is no harm in examining how solid all those 'no' votes are.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 28, 2015, 07:35:11 PM
The UK is going to look very different by 2020, as will NornIrn


http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/939cae4c-9454-11e5-b190-291e94b77c8f.html

"By cutting the size of the state the chancellor is also pulling it out of all recognisable shape. Politics and demography are driving remorseless rises in the budgets for health and the elderly just as other services are slashed. Anything classed as discretionary spending — think, say, of the criminal justice system, the environment, support for industry and employment, or the basic bureaucracy of public administration — is left with a shrinking share of an ever smaller cake. We should not be surprised that HM Revenue & Customs now fails to answer 25 per cent of telephone calls from individual taxpayers.

The cuts that will most visibly alter the look and feel of the nation are those that impact on what you might call civic Britain. Mr Osborne makes great play of a declared commitment to shift power from Whitehall to the nation’s town halls. The Autumn Statement makes it blindingly clear that, on the contrary, the exercise is one in transferring to town halls responsibility to implement Whitehall-directed cuts.

Local authorities have been the biggest losers from austerity. The IFS estimates that the big reductions in central government grants to councils during the last parliament will be followed by a further 50 per cent cut by 2020. Councils have also been told to raise additional local taxes to pay for social care and policing.

The net effect is to force local politicians to scrap provision of anything much that falls outside their statutory responsibilities. This means closing libraries, swimming pools, parks, children’s centres and community meeting places for the elderly and infirm. "

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on November 29, 2015, 07:57:57 AM
Sadly no argument,no matter how logical or attractive will ever convince unionists of the merits of a UI.They regard themselves as British and see the South as a different and in many cases a "foreign country". Indeed I remember a Gand uncle of mine saying many years ago that unionists would eat grass before going into a united Ireland.

Not excusing the shameful discrimination that went on here (I myself was a victim of this) but a lot of it was borne from fear and insecurity.Big Paisley remarked that Catholics in general never tried to make NI work at any stage and their opposition to the statelet was met with suspicion and fear on the unionist side.

I have seen a lot of change here and things I'd never dreamed would happen,but alas I'll never see a United Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 29, 2015, 08:03:15 AM
Unionists proper are now less than 50% of NI population and declining. People rooted in the 17th century should not be allowed determine the evolution of the 21st century.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on November 29, 2015, 10:03:01 AM
A United Ireland without their consent,all the same,will be a mirror image of N Ireland,that is no peaceful,confrontation,resentment and everything else
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 11:38:46 AM
A United Ireland without their consent,all the same,will be a mirror image of N Ireland,that is no peaceful,confrontation,resentment and everything else
Given the GFA, it can't happen anyway. There has to be consent on all sides
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on November 29, 2015, 12:24:22 PM
Exactly,the GFA copper fastened partition indefinitely.Overwhelmingly the people of the south signed away the claim to the whole island,contained in Articles 2 and 3,so "Opening up discussions" on pipe dreams is a complete waste of time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 01:17:49 PM
A pipe dream is better than a pipe bomb. Butlots will depend on London post cuts and post a possible Brexit plus post the rise of English nationalism. The Union will only weaken over time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 29, 2015, 05:55:29 PM
A United Ireland without their consent,all the same,will be a mirror image of N Ireland,that is no peaceful,confrontation,resentment and everything else
Given the GFA, it can't happen anyway. There has to be consent on all sides

Incorrect. The GFA says if 50%+1 in the north vote for reunification, and if the people in the south agree, then reunification it is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 06:18:54 PM
A United Ireland without their consent,all the same,will be a mirror image of N Ireland,that is no peaceful,confrontation,resentment and everything else
Given the GFA, it can't happen anyway. There has to be consent on all sides

Incorrect. The GFA says if 50%+1 in the north vote for reunification, and if the people in the south agree, then reunification it is.
in practice parity of esteem means they wouldn't get away with it. Another Ulster Covenant would be the sand in the vaseline. The Irish Question has been going on for a long time and a 51 percent catholic proportion won't make it disappear.The plantation was stupid but the people are still there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 29, 2015, 06:38:18 PM
The Unionists, and their fellow travellers, seem to believe that a Unionist vote should be worth more than other people's votes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 29, 2015, 07:41:06 PM
A United Ireland without their consent,all the same,will be a mirror image of N Ireland,that is no peaceful,confrontation,resentment and everything else
Given the GFA, it can't happen anyway. There has to be consent on all sides

Incorrect. The GFA says if 50%+1 in the north vote for reunification, and if the people in the south agree, then reunification it is.
in practice parity of esteem means they wouldn't get away with it. Another Ulster Covenant would be the sand in the vaseline. The Irish Question has been going on for a long time and a 51 percent catholic proportion won't make it disappear.The plantation was stupid but the people are still there.

The question becomes, what form would our united Ireland take?

Scenario 1 - Complete assimilation of the north into the existing structures of the south, with no progress in healing divisions in the north.
Unionist reaction - Open insurrection.

Scenario 2 - Transfer powers from Westminster to Dublin, but retain Stormont assembly in present form with existing power-sharing checks and balances.  Heal divisions between the two sides in the north via desegregation of education and sort out the parades impasse. New state joins Commonwealth but remains a republic with its own elected head of state.
Unionist reaction - Grumbling resentment, but acceptance. Some dissident loyalist violence, but small enough that it can be contained until it fades away.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on November 29, 2015, 08:06:17 PM
Unionists proper are now less than 50% of NI population and declining. People rooted in the 17th century should not be allowed determine the evolution of the 21st century.
By 'Unionists proper', I assume you mean protestants.  Unfortunately for you there are quite a few 'improper' unionists too.  Are they too rooted in the 17th century, or do they just perhaps prefer the benefits that come from remaining within the union.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Maguire01 on November 29, 2015, 08:10:46 PM
A United Ireland without their consent,all the same,will be a mirror image of N Ireland,that is no peaceful,confrontation,resentment and everything else
Given the GFA, it can't happen anyway. There has to be consent on all sides

Incorrect. The GFA says if 50%+1 in the north vote for reunification, and if the people in the south agree, then reunification it is.
in practice parity of esteem means they wouldn't get away with it. Another Ulster Covenant would be the sand in the vaseline. The Irish Question has been going on for a long time and a 51 percent catholic proportion won't make it disappear.The plantation was stupid but the people are still there.

The question becomes, what form would our united Ireland take?

Scenario 1 - Complete assimilation of the north into the existing structures of the south, with no progress in healing divisions in the north.
Unionist reaction - Open insurrection.

Scenario 2 - Transfer powers from Westminster to Dublin, but retain Stormont assembly in present form with existing power-sharing checks and balances.  Heal divisions between the two sides in the north via desegregation of education and sort out the parades impasse. New state joins Commonwealth but remains a republic with its own elected head of state.
Unionist reaction - Grumbling resentment, but acceptance. Some dissident loyalist violence, but small enough that it can be contained until it fades away.
Scenario 2 is the only viable option, with power devolved from Dublin (and TDs elected from NI to the Dail). The PSNI remains the police force for NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 08:30:42 PM
I'd say in a positive outcome Stormont would be responsible for things like policing, environment, justice but things like finance and the bigger spending departments as well as Foreign Affairs would be run out of Dublin.  Heavy devolution. It would be great to get a "best of" set of institutions, down South as well as up North.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 29, 2015, 08:35:44 PM
Exactly,the GFA copper fastened partition indefinitely.Overwhelmingly the people of the south signed away the claim to the whole island,contained in Articles 2 and 3,so "Opening up discussions" on pipe dreams is a complete waste of time.

Articles 2 & 3?
When they were there they meant nothing as they were never acted upon. It seems to me they more now more important when they're gone as bullshitters think they had a role to play.

They were nothing but decoration to Fianna Fail.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on November 29, 2015, 09:31:24 PM
If a United Ireland was to happen tomorrow,every unionist demand would be readily acceded to (including Drumcree/Garvaghy Road March every Sunday,Union Jack flying from Dáil Éireann and every other public building) for fear of any allegation of discrimination.

Articles 2 and 3 were at least nominal recognition that Ireland was the entire island territory.Now that they're gone it means even this nominal aspiration to govern the whole island is gone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 09:51:13 PM
If a United Ireland was to happen tomorrow,every unionist demand would be readily acceded to (including Drumcree/Garvaghy Road March every Sunday,Union Jack flying from Dáil Éireann and every other public building) for fear of any allegation of discrimination.

Articles 2 and 3 were at least nominal recognition that Ireland was the entire island territory.Now that they're gone it means even this nominal aspiration to govern the whole island is gone.
Getting rid of 2 and 3 for a say in NI was progress IMO. If there was a UI they could be reinserted.
But it depends on what happens in NI and especially the UK. The cuts are really going to put a strain on the Union. Scotland and (to a lesser extent) Wales might not hang around.  The Tories want to get
spending down to 35% of GDP and will cut everything bar the NHS. If Scotland goes all bets are off for NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on November 29, 2015, 10:03:34 PM
Unionists in NI will never go,as they will not concede to a Unitec Ireland,and unlike Wales and Scotland NI could not make a reasonable attempt at independence
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on November 29, 2015, 10:37:39 PM
Unionists in NI will never go,as they will not concede to a Unitec Ireland,and unlike Wales and Scotland NI could not make a reasonable attempt at independence
10/20 years ago they wouldn't even talk about it.

You have politicians like Jeffrey Donaldson whoring up NI for trident in a desperate attempt to be relevant and seem British.

You have loyalists seeking the possibility of "special minority" status.

Belfast is no longer a loyalist city.

Its not as if they'll have a choice if and when the time comes for this country to be unified.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 11:35:07 PM
Unionists in NI will never go,as they will not concede to a Unitec Ireland,and unlike Wales and Scotland NI could not make a reasonable attempt at independence
English nationalism is the unknown factor, Tony. If it becomes a big issue, NI Unionists won't have much of a say. Like they can talk about the somme and all but nobody will be listening.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 30, 2015, 05:13:23 AM
Unionists proper are now less than 50% of NI population and declining. People rooted in the 17th century should not be allowed determine the evolution of the 21st century.
By 'Unionists proper', I assume you mean protestants.  Unfortunately for you there are quite a few 'improper' unionists too.  Are they too rooted in the 17th century, or do they just perhaps prefer the benefits that come from remaining within the union.

No, why do assume I meant Protestants, do you think unionism is a sectarian thing? The improper unionists are not rooted in the 17th century and prefer the benefits of remaining in the union, and if there is no actual benefit to remaining in the union then they are open to discussions to end it. The point here is that there are others motivated by bigotry and a wish to continue a sordid colonisation project, the issue is whether these people's determination to remain inspired by the 17th century is an obstacle to peace and prosperity on this island in the 21st century.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 30, 2015, 11:34:56 AM
Talking of the 17th Century I see Allister's Neanderthal Unionist Party had its conference over the weekend.
That must have been great fun ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on November 30, 2015, 05:13:41 PM
Unionists proper are now less than 50% of NI population and declining. People rooted in the 17th century should not be allowed determine the evolution of the 21st century.
By 'Unionists proper', I assume you mean protestants.  Unfortunately for you there are quite a few 'improper' unionists too.  Are they too rooted in the 17th century, or do they just perhaps prefer the benefits that come from remaining within the union.

No, why do assume I meant Protestants, do you think unionism is a sectarian thing? The improper unionists are not rooted in the 17th century and prefer the benefits of remaining in the union, and if there is no actual benefit to remaining in the union then they are open to discussions to end it. The point here is that there are others motivated by bigotry and a wish to continue a sordid colonisation project, the issue is whether these people's determination to remain inspired by the 17th century is an obstacle to peace and prosperity on this island in the 21st century.
What did you mean then by the term 'Unionists proper' when polls consistently show that considerably more, rather than less, than 50% of the population are in favour of retaining the Union?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 30, 2015, 06:14:11 PM
There are people who would rather rather eat grass than see an end to the union, as described above. These I describe as unionists proper. Then there are those who think that in the present condition of NI that the union is best, but who are open to persuasion otherwise
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 06:15:04 AM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/bridging-the-gap-on-irelands-increasing-divide-between-north-and-south-34353967.html

Don't particularly like O'Doherty but he's bang on the money here
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 13, 2016, 08:39:05 AM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/bridging-the-gap-on-irelands-increasing-divide-between-north-and-south-34353967.html

Don't particularly like O'Doherty but he's bang on the money here

Watch RTE's current affairs programme Primetime and you will rarely see northerners in the heat of their discussions about events down there. You will see instead a parade of pundits and political figures who almost never feature on discussion programmes in the North.
A few pundits and critics from the North are noticed in the South: Eamonn McCann, Susan McKay, Devlin. Almost none from there are regular guests on programmes here.


RTE is the ultimate partitionist institution

UTV tried to cross the border with new channel UTV Ireland, investing in the prospect of the emergence of a one island consciousness, and it failed miserably.
The people of both jurisdictions are settled comfortably with a sense of their parameters.
There are exceptions in sport and religion. Northern rugby players often play for Ireland and northern supporters travel to Dublin to cheer. But there is little chance of this being matched in football.


Even in Gaelic sports, northern teams like Tyrone getting into the All-Ireland final is talked of as something different, unusual, as an invasion of the barbarians from one perspective, an injection of raw genius from another, but either way, until very recently, a surprise, a break in the natural order.
Down started winning in 1960
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 13, 2016, 10:07:30 AM
I would say that there has not been to much closing of the gap between both sides in the North, let alone between North and South.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hardy on January 13, 2016, 10:20:21 AM
Bigendians, Littendians. We are programmed to seek out the differences between us and divide ourselves into mutually hostile groups based on those differences. It would be amazing if, after a century of political separation and subjection to different sets of influences, Northerners and Southerners hadn't developed substantial differences in every facet of society. In Swiftian fashion, it only takes a perceived threat to the interests of one, for the other to be set up as the enemy by the first opportunistic demagogue.

Every fomenter of fear, hatred and suspicion, from Trump to German skinheads to posters here who try to whip up hatred of migrants, knows how to use this human trait.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 13, 2016, 11:26:19 AM
 ::)
So Malachi feels there's an increasing gap because:
1. Not enough northerners on RTE primetime
2. No one reads his books in the south
3. He didn't see the same people at two different exhibitions
4. Something a Kerry publican said to him

 There's a certain brand of Belfast man, who considers anything outside Lisburn as "way out the country". His mentality is just an extension of this. Someone should tell him Tyrone won an All Ireland last year.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 12:26:34 PM
Still cant argue with the basics.After 100 years we are essentially two separate statelets with different cultures with no appetite,much less a strategy for unity,coming from either North or South.Same applies between North and UK.Hence my contention that chasing the unity pipedream is a waste of time.Far better to concentrate on N Irishness,no one else cares or wants us.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 13, 2016, 01:17:24 PM
Still cant argue with the basics.After 100 years we are essentially two separate statelets with different cultures with no appetite,much less a strategy for unity,coming from either North or South.Same applies between North and UK.Hence my contention that chasing the unity pipedream is a waste of time.Far better to concentrate on N Irishness,no one else cares or wants us.
The basics as you call them are mainly yours and Malachi's opinion.

Separate cultures is bs. I have family and/or friends in every province. I have been in almost every county at some stage in my life. I have never once experienced any cultural difference while being with these people or in any other county.

While I agree there is no strategy from anyone, NI as it remains is an abject failure, heavily subsidised yet still the worst off part of the state on the periphery of the UK. I would respectfully disagree that seeking an alternative in the form of unification is not a waste of time nor is it a pipedream.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 01:46:58 PM
It is manifestly a waste of time when those with whom you wish to unite do not wish to unite with you,and their ministers admit on tv debates that unity is in any case unaffordable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 13, 2016, 01:50:45 PM
It is manifestly a waste of time when those with whom you wish to unite do not wish to unite with you,and their ministers admit on tv debates that unity is in any case unaffordable.
A lot can change in a relatively short period of time so I wouldn't exactly let some FG numpty put paid to any aspirations of unity. In any case it is enshrined in legislation that the people decide, not the government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on January 13, 2016, 02:03:05 PM
It is manifestly a waste of time when those with whom you wish to unite do not wish to unite with you,and their ministers admit on tv debates that unity is in any case unaffordable.

It is manifestly a waste of time to try to concentrate on the development of a statelet that has been consistently proven over 80 odd years to be an abject failure and does not have the resources to sustain itself.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyboard Warrior on January 13, 2016, 02:11:06 PM
Still cant argue with the basics.After 100 years we are essentially two separate statelets with different cultures with no appetite,much less a strategy for unity,coming from either North or South.Same applies between North and UK.Hence my contention that chasing the unity pipedream is a waste of time.Far better to concentrate on N Irishness,no one else cares or wants us.

I'm from Tyrone and feel more culturally and personally similar to yahoos from Cork as B*ll*ck's from up the road in Belfast or Craigavon.

What also should be considered is the 'Establishment Inertia'. They will follow what they deem the status quo to be and resist voices for change (For example, only 1 Scottish paper coming out as pro-independence yet 45% of people voted yes).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 13, 2016, 02:53:22 PM
The general thrust of this is nonsense. Donegal winning the AI was treated as much as novelty as Tyrone. UTV Ireland wasn't an All Ireland station but UTV 26 counties, it has failed because they haven't a clue, perhaps they should show some GAA.

And there is sort of ingrown Belfastian culture that regards Tyrone in much the same way as Donegal or Cork.

It is manifestly a waste of time when those with whom you wish to unite do not wish to unite with you,and their ministers admit on tv debates that unity is in any case unaffordable.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of people in the 26 counties do not want a UI, every poll has shown this. Unity is unaffordable because NI is a basket case, if it had some self respect it would cease to be so.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on January 13, 2016, 03:09:06 PM
The general thrust of this is nonsense. Donegal winning the AI was treated as much as novelty as Tyrone. UTV Ireland wasn't an All Ireland station but UTV 26 counties, it has failed because they haven't a clue, perhaps they should show some GAA.

And there is sort of ingrown Belfastian culture that regards Tyrone in much the same way as Donegal or Cork.

It is manifestly a waste of time when those with whom you wish to unite do not wish to unite with you,and their ministers admit on tv debates that unity is in any case unaffordable.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of people in the 26 counties do not want a UI, every poll has shown this. Unity is unaffordable because NI is a basket case, if it had some self respect it would cease to be so.

But if a date for unification was agreed then the following people would emigrate to Britain:
1) Arlene Foster
2) Gregory Campbell
.
.
.
.
599,999) Jamie Bryson and
600,000) Wullie Frasier. 

All 600,000 of these will no longer be a burden on Ireland and will sponge off England. Basket Case solved. Thank you very much.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 04:51:41 PM
History for slow learners.Freestate abandoned the North 100 years ago.In 1998 over 90% of the electorate voted to jettison Articles 2 and 3.They like Britain dont want anything to do with the North.A reformed N Irish state could become sustainable if both communities worked together towards a common identity,instead of mutually exclusive allegiances to states that neither want or understand them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 13, 2016, 04:54:21 PM
Still cant argue with the basics.After 100 years we are essentially two separate statelets with different cultures with no appetite,much less a strategy for unity,coming from either North or South.Same applies between North and UK.Hence my contention that chasing the unity pipedream is a waste of time.Far better to concentrate on N Irishness,no one else cares or wants us.
Tony you be as Northern Irish as you like, I am Irish period, good luck with your new unionist friends. I would be in favour of trying to reach mutual accommodation but the utterances of Arlene and the actions of their councillors would suggest that that compromise can only be on their terms. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 13, 2016, 05:00:16 PM
History for slow learners.Freestate abandoned the North 100 years ago.In 1998 over 90% of the electorate voted to jettison Articles 2 and 3.They like Britain dont want anything to do with the North.A reformed N Irish state could become sustainable if both communities worked together towards a common identity,instead of mutually exclusive allegiances to states that neither want or understand them.
How far down that road have you got with the brethren in Portadown?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 05:03:01 PM
A Northern Irish identity is neither Unionist or Nationalist.It is exclusively Northern Irish based on unique commonalities we all share.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 13, 2016, 05:04:16 PM
A Northern Irish identity is neither Unionist or Nationalist.It is exclusively Northern Irish based on unique commonalities we all share.
Which is why it won't work
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 13, 2016, 05:18:01 PM
A Northern Irish identity is neither Unionist or Nationalist.It is exclusively Northern Irish based on unique commonalities we all share.

OK then, what would these unique commonalities be? A chip on the shoulder?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hardy on January 13, 2016, 05:20:36 PM
Is a unique commonality a paradox?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on January 13, 2016, 05:35:52 PM
Trouble is there are 2 'Northern Irish' idenities, not one. I'd say my idea of Northern Irish is different than Jamie Bwyson's.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 06:06:52 PM
How is a concept of unique commonality among all N Irish citizens a paradox? At the moment 50% of the electorate here don't vote because they reject the obsolete divisive philosophies of unionism and nationalism and their matually exclusive allegiances to two different sovereign states who neither want nor understand them.

Apart from all that,if a United Ireland came about miraculously tomorrow,it would be governed by a unionist coalition of DUP,UUP and FG,with Orange Marches going up the Falls,Bogside etc as the new Government goes out of its way to prove its impartiality etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on January 13, 2016, 06:07:04 PM
A Northern Irish identity is neither Unionist or Nationalist.It is exclusively Northern Irish based on unique commonalities we all share.

Or a cop out for the "why can't we all just get along" brigade with splinters in their arses??  Northern Irish...our wee identity??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 13, 2016, 06:20:19 PM
in 20 years time the McCooey proportion of the population could be down to 40%. Brain drain is a massive issue for them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 06:25:56 PM
What has 100 years of two communities pursuing separate unionist/nationalist outcomes achieved? Sectarian,segregation,horrendous violence,poverty,deprivation.What is the point of continuing with this useless approach?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 13, 2016, 06:47:58 PM
What has 100 years of two communities pursuing separate unionist/nationalist outcomes achieved? Sectarian,segregation,horrendous violence,poverty,deprivation.What is the point of continuing with this useless approach?
NI has failed and you want nationalists to abandon their ideology to embrace it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 13, 2016, 07:03:22 PM
History for slow learners.Freestate abandoned the North 100 years ago.In 1998 over 90% of the electorate voted to jettison Articles 2 and 3.They like Britain dont want anything to do with the North.
Errr... The Irish Free State was established in 1922. The 6 Co " parliament" voted to be excluded from the Irish Free State meaning it only extended to 26 Cos.
The Articles 2 & 3 were voted out as part of a new Agreement which recognised the right of people from the 6 Cos to Irish citizenship.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 13, 2016, 07:07:40 PM
What has 100 years of two communities pursuing separate unionist/nationalist outcomes achieved? Sectarian,segregation,horrendous violence,poverty,deprivation.What is the point of continuing with this useless approach?

There is no point, unionists should stop promoting sectariansim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 07:42:44 PM
What if nationalists abandoned the elusive and unattainable concept of unity and tried to make a new North of Ireland work? Much of the unionist bigotry is founded on mistrust.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: stew on January 13, 2016, 08:24:17 PM
What if nationalists abandoned the elusive and unattainable concept of unity and tried to make a new North of Ireland work? Much of the unionist bigotry is founded on mistrust.

it is founded an a superiority complex, they think they are better than us Tony, I feel for you Tony, they really did a number on you in Portadown Tone, you ever vote DUP?


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 08:32:14 PM
No but I wouldnt be averse to? Superiority? A semi illiterate prod from Sandy Row feels superior to a Taig Doctor on the Malone Road?.I doubt it.Time to end the sham fights
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 13, 2016, 08:44:40 PM
What if nationalists abandoned the elusive and unattainable concept of unity and tried to make a new North of Ireland work? Much of the unionist bigotry is founded on mistrust.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 13, 2016, 09:50:09 PM
😂😂😂.Yes multi millionaire taigs in the North of Ireland are captives alright😱.The only mugs are those being taken in by the sham fights involving the same old parties here,who are interested only in rhetoric and snouts in the trough.Sure didn't Big Ian boast about all the Catholics in N Antrim voting for him on account of the first class service he gave them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 13, 2016, 11:42:32 PM
When did secret ballots come in in the North East?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on January 14, 2016, 09:24:16 AM
Trouble is there are 2 'Northern Irish' idenities, not one. I'd say my idea of Northern Irish is different than Jamie Bwyson's.

I can't fathom this 'Northern Irish' identity or cultural thing, but it is something than Unionism is trying to eek out of something from the language of Ulster Scots to the various Orange fest /Somme heritage centres I see popping up all over the place, but it certainly isn't something I can identify with from my upbringing and I'd live hand to glove with some that do.
There has to be an acceptance of both cultures in the north and currently that isn't the case. The establishment is still very much of the unionist variety.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 14, 2016, 09:49:35 AM
What if nationalists abandoned the elusive and unattainable concept of unity and tried to make a new North of Ireland work? Much of the unionist bigotry is founded on mistrust.

What if unionist's abandoned their bigotry?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 14, 2016, 11:02:33 AM
I think bigotry at a political level is all but gone.It is legally forbidden in any case.Pursuit of a common N Irish identity instead of allegiances to states that don't want any of us is plainly the best way forward.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 14, 2016, 11:13:40 AM
I think bigotry at a political level is all but gone.It is legally forbidden in any case.Pursuit of a common N Irish identity instead of allegiances to states that don't want any of us is plainly the best way forward.

Do you seriously believe that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 14, 2016, 11:15:02 AM
The North has no future outside either a UK state or an All Ireland entity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 14, 2016, 11:18:07 AM
By the way by a common Northern Ireland identity do you mean a state independent of UK or the Republic of Ireland, who would pay all those here who work (ahem) who get paid by the British Government as civil servants, this is the most government subsidised place in these islands, if all the civil servants had to get a proper job they wouldn't get past the first interview.  I would suggest you take you head out of the clouds.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 14, 2016, 11:30:21 AM
No.The constitutional status quo would have to remain for the foreseeable future,but the cohesion brought about by focusing on a new N Irish identity could.lead to economic stability and ultimately financial independence
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 14, 2016, 11:37:19 AM
No.The constitutional status quo would have to remain for the foreseeable future,but the cohesion brought about by focusing on a new N Irish identity could.lead to economic stability and ultimately financial independence

That is a load of horse shite.  Question -  how can you keep the constitutional status quo being totally subsidised by west minister with a huge % of the population looking for a united Ireland and focus on a new N Irish identity?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyboard Warrior on January 14, 2016, 11:38:13 AM
No.The constitutional status quo would have to remain for the foreseeable future,but the cohesion brought about by focusing on a new N Irish identity could.lead to economic stability and ultimately financial independence

Drivel
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 14, 2016, 11:40:25 AM
I don't see how you would go about making people change their ethno-political identity; non more so than Unionists. And you say a United Ireland is pie in the sky!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 14, 2016, 06:03:34 PM
I am saying the focus should be on a N Irish identity,something like NI21 were trying to do.That way,a large portion of the electorate (50%) who don't currently vote,as they are disillusioned with the failed unionists nationalist political philsophies,might be persuaded to come to the ballot box.

The other option is to maintain the current and bizarre pursuit of total UK integration or the equally delusional notion of Irish unity,neither option wanted by the UK or Irish governments,and both totally unattainable,which fuels divisiveness,tribalism,sectarianism,deprivation and violence.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 14, 2016, 06:10:25 PM
Trouble is there are 2 'Northern Irish' idenities, not one. I'd say my idea of Northern Irish is different than Jamie Bwyson's.

I can't fathom this 'Northern Irish' identity or cultural thing, but it is something than Unionism is trying to eek out of something from the language of Ulster Scots to the various Orange fest /Somme heritage centres I see popping up all over the place, but it certainly isn't something I can identify with from my upbringing and I'd live hand to glove with some that do.
There has to be an acceptance of both cultures in the north and currently that isn't the case. The establishment is still very much of the unionist variety.
100% correct. Where I grew up our culture games etc are inherently Irish, I see no sign of Unionists embracing Tony's pipe dream of a Northern Irish Identity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 14, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
I am saying the focus should be on a N Irish identity,something like NI21 were trying to do.That way,a large portion of the electorate (50%) who don't currently vote,as they are disillusioned with the failed unionists nationalist political philsophies,might be persuaded to come to the ballot box.

How is NI21 doing, then. With 50% of potential voters they should do real well.

Quote
The other option is to maintain the current and bizarre pursuit of total UK integration or the equally delusional notion of Irish unity,neither option wanted by the UK or Irish governments,and both totally unattainable,which fuels divisiveness,tribalism,sectarianism,deprivation and violence.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 14, 2016, 06:34:30 PM
Yes broken record is right.For 100 years people up here have been trying to make this place as Brotish as Finchley or reunify Ireland.Today both scenarios are further away than ever.What is the point continuing to chase outcomes that are never going to happen?

NI21 were unsuccessful but that doesn't mean their aims weren't admirable
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 14, 2016, 07:12:48 PM
Yes broken record is right.For 100 years people up here have been trying to make this place as Brotish as Finchley or reunify Ireland.Today both scenarios are further away than ever.What is the point continuing to chase outcomes that are never going to happen?

Don't be so impatient. The sick sectarian edifice that is Northern Ireland is rotten from the inside, it will not endure.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 14, 2016, 08:04:25 PM
They said that 100 yeard ago.Who's.going to end it?.SDLP by retracting their oaths of allegiance to the Queen? Martin or Gerry in between meeting and greeting royals? Surely not the freestate govt? Our good neighbours I heard Bertie say in Newry a couple of months ago as he fretted over a Brexit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 14, 2016, 08:53:22 PM
They said that 100 yeard ago.Who's.going to end it?.SDLP by retracting their oaths of allegiance to the Queen? Martin or Gerry in between meeting and greeting royals? Surely not the freestate govt? Our good neighbours I heard Bertie say in Newry a couple of months ago as he fretted over a Brexit.

Bertie must have made a powerful impact, you've mentioned it more times than Cross has Armagh championships.
There is no social, political or economic trend favourable to the continued existence of the NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 14, 2016, 09:27:46 PM
There is no substantial will,North or South for Unity,fact.I am only expressing Bertie's view,which is the representative view of the southern part of this island,I take no pleasure in repeating it.Why keep pining for something that is never going to happen in any of our lifetimes?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 14, 2016, 11:45:22 PM
Bertiebolox only represents himself and as for the "southern part of this island" ....
I' m not too sure how Munster and South Leinster people feel about Unity.
Round here most people would favour it but it's not something which keeps people from sleeping at night.
However it would help if pro U I parties spelled out what shape they'd see a UI taking and what arrangements would be made for the "Ulster British".
Vague blather about a 32 County Socialist Republic which will never happen is no addition.
Although Gerry did recently say something at a SF thingy in Dundalk along the lines of " A UI may not take the shape most of you think and it may have some devolution to Belfawst ".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 15, 2016, 07:27:24 AM
But over 90% of the southern electorate who voted, in 1998,jettisoned articles 2 and 3.Vague notions in favour of a UI are useless.There is no vision,strategy of appetite,North or South, to make it happen.The North is and always has been part of the Dublin Government's Foreign Affairs Dept,that says it all.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 15, 2016, 09:48:17 AM
But over 90% of the southern electorate who voted, in 1998,jettisoned articles 2 and 3.Vague notions in favour of a UI are useless.There is no vision,strategy of appetite,North or South, to make it happen.The North is and always has been part of the Dublin Government's Foreign Affairs Dept,that says it all.
Why are you complaining sure you want to create a new Northern Ireland that would be alien to that awful Republic. The number of people supporting your suggestion would be even less than the number who voted for NI21. You can't make assumptions as to why people don't vote or if they were pushed to it what they would vote for. You are buying into Mike Nesbitt's view that these are all dormant unionist voters. A lot of nationalists don't vote either most likely because they don't see the assembly in this little statelet as having any actual power. Before you create this identity it is likely to split between those who would classify themselves as Northern Irish and those who would be a Northern Ireland person. Most unionists can't utter the word Irish in any context preferring Robinsons Aaland, Ulster or Norn Iron.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on January 15, 2016, 10:35:02 AM
Bertiebolox only represents himself and as for the "southern part of this island" ....
I' m not too sure how Munster and South Leinster people feel about Unity.
Round here most people would favour it but it's not something which keeps people from sleeping at night.
However it would help if pro U I parties spelled out what shape they'd see a UI taking and what arrangements would be made for the "Ulster British".
Vague blather about a 32 County Socialist Republic which will never happen is no addition.
Although Gerry did recently say something at a SF thingy in Dundalk along the lines of " A UI may not take the shape most of you think and it may have some devolution to Belfawst ".

Didn't Éire Nua not have four provincial parliaments with a Federal 32 county government overseeing it.
I'm not sure if modern Sinn Féin still are advocates of that now though!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 15, 2016, 10:55:26 AM
Most unionists can't utter the word Irish in any context preferring Robinsons Aaland, Ulster or Norn Iron.
Don't forget "London-dre"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on January 15, 2016, 11:51:13 AM
Yes broken record is right.For 100 years people up here have been trying to make this place as Brotish as Finchley or reunify Ireland.Today both scenarios are further away than ever.What is the point continuing to chase outcomes that are never going to happen?

NI21 were unsuccessful but that doesn't mean their aims weren't admirable


No, and the desire to establish a United Ireland has been unsuccessful but that doesn't mean that the aim is not admirable.

NI21 is a busted flush mostly because the middle class Northern Irish couldn't help but fall out amongst themselves...oh and nobody voted for them
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 15, 2016, 02:41:43 PM
Nobody is denying Irish Unity is an admirable aim.It is a fact that there is no real significant desire much less a.strategy.to make it happen North or South so what is the.point of pining.for it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 15, 2016, 03:13:09 PM
Nobody is denying Irish Unity is an admirable aim.It is a fact that there is no real significant desire much less a.strategy.to make it happen North or South so what is the.point of pining.for it?

The mainfest useless of politicians, especially thr 6 county variety, suggests that even moderate competance would be a vast improvement and given the long period of time involved there had to some hope of this emerging, as it did in Scotland. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 15, 2016, 03:37:22 PM
And the 26 county variety who bankrupted the state are any better how? Repeat after me A United Ireland is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.The southern government and people don't want it,northern nationalists don't even want it,there is no plan or strategy to achieve it..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 15, 2016, 07:00:06 PM
And the 26 county variety who bankrupted the state are any better how? Repeat after me A United Ireland is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

The 26 county state is not bankrupt. There may be a delay in a United ireland, which may delay i tbeyond the lifespans of oul fellows like us, but I'm going to cut down on sugar and hope.

Quote from: T Fearon
The southern government and people don't want it,northern nationalists don't even want it,there is no plan or strategy to achieve it..

Those who don't want it, as distinct from having a realistic appreciation of the issues, cannot be described as nationalists but should title themselves unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 15, 2016, 07:51:46 PM
They are not unionists more like ABUs Anything But Unity.Seriously its not going to happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 15, 2016, 11:33:53 PM
And the 26 county variety who bankrupted the state are any better how? Repeat after me A United Ireland is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

The 26 county state is not bankrupt. There may be a delay in a United ireland, which may delay i tbeyond the lifespans of oul fellows like us, but I'm going to cut down on sugar and hope.

Quote from: T Fearon
The southern government and people don't want it,northern nationalists don't even want it,there is no plan or strategy to achieve it..

Those who don't want it, as distinct from having a realistic appreciation of the issues, cannot be described as nationalists but should title themselves unionists.

yip true. The big truth is that there are plenty of NI citizens born into a catholic or nationalist tradition who do not aspire to a united ireland. Simple stuff really. But why do SF point to relative "catholic" and "protestant" birth rates in this scenario?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 16, 2016, 06:05:00 AM
It's all part of the sham,trying to spook the brainless on the other "side".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 16, 2016, 08:52:57 AM
And the 26 county variety who bankrupted the state are any better how? Repeat after me A United Ireland is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

The 26 county state is not bankrupt. There may be a delay in a United ireland, which may delay i tbeyond the lifespans of oul fellows like us, but I'm going to cut down on sugar and hope.

Quote from: T Fearon
The southern government and people don't want it,northern nationalists don't even want it,there is no plan or strategy to achieve it..

Those who don't want it, as distinct from having a realistic appreciation of the issues, cannot be described as nationalists but should title themselves unionists.

yip true. The big truth is that there are plenty of NI citizens born into a catholic or nationalist tradition who do not aspire to a united ireland. Simple stuff really. But why do SF point to relative "catholic" and "protestant" birth rates in this scenario?
Simply because at some stage that catholic majority may be persuaded to support unity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 16, 2016, 09:50:59 AM
There are no "NI citizens" ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 16, 2016, 10:39:35 AM
It is one of the paradoxes that Sinn Fein,espousers of republicanism which is supposed to be secular with the aim of uniting Protestant,Catholic and dissenter,tried to use the more taigs than prods in N Belfast,before last year's election,showing they are as equally adept/contemptible as unionists in the practice of sectarianism for electoral gain.

Until the fixation with nationalism/unionism is replaced by a common N Irish identity (which would have an equal place in a United Ireland as it would under the current constitutional position), normal politics will never happen here,and unattainable goals and the consequences will always prevail.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on January 16, 2016, 11:32:09 AM
But there already is a N Irish identity.  It can be seen at fleg protests and Windsor Pk for NI saccer games.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 16, 2016, 12:51:31 PM
That is a unionist/loyalist identity,precisely the kind whose political influence should be reduced and indeed nullified.The real N Irish identity is politically neutral and common to all traditions.Key elements of this would be,honesty,decency,work ethic,religious belief,respect,tolerance,plain speaking,thriftiness,temperance etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 16, 2016, 01:29:46 PM
That is a unionist/loyalist identity,precisely the kind whose political influence should be reduced and indeed nullified.The real N Irish identity is politically neutral and common to all traditions.Key elements of this would be,honesty,decency,work ethic,religious belief,respect,tolerance,plain speaking,thriftiness,temperance etc.

Amazing the person championing this from what I can see based on his posts, possesses none of these traits.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 16, 2016, 02:09:05 PM
That is a unionist/loyalist identity,precisely the kind whose political influence should be reduced and indeed nullified.The real N Irish identity is politically neutral and common to all traditions.Key elements of this would be,honesty,decency,work ethic,religious belief,respect,tolerance,plain speaking,thriftiness,temperance etc.
Tony as Niall Tobin once observed "that pup is dead!" NI identity would have to be entirely unionist in outlook...give it up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 16, 2016, 02:49:34 PM
Northern Irish is not the same as Northern Ireland even.The Northern Irish identity,(and a large percentage of the population described themselves so at the last census count) is neither unionist nor nationalist (if it was those people would have described themselves as British or Irish in the census),in fact one of the hallmarks of Northern Irish identity is feeling neither British nor Irish,or at least prioritising your N Irishness over your Britishness or Irishness.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on January 16, 2016, 02:55:17 PM
That is a unionist/loyalist identity,precisely the kind whose political influence should be reduced and indeed nullified.The real N Irish identity is politically neutral and common to all traditions.Key elements of this would be,honesty,decency,work ethic,religious belief,respect,tolerance,plain speaking,thriftiness,temperance etc.

This must be a wind up!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 10:00:51 PM
And the 26 county variety who bankrupted the state are any better how? Repeat after me A United Ireland is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

The 26 county state is not bankrupt. There may be a delay in a United ireland, which may delay i tbeyond the lifespans of oul fellows like us, but I'm going to cut down on sugar and hope.

Quote from: T Fearon
The southern government and people don't want it,northern nationalists don't even want it,there is no plan or strategy to achieve it..

Those who don't want it, as distinct from having a realistic appreciation of the issues, cannot be described as nationalists but should title themselves unionists.

yip true. The big truth is that there are plenty of NI citizens born into a catholic or nationalist tradition who do not aspire to a united ireland. Simple stuff really. But why do SF point to relative "catholic" and "protestant" birth rates in this scenario?
Simply because at some stage that catholic majority may be persuaded to support unity.

Interesting. So will the logic of the SF argument in favour of a United Ireland only be apparent to those who believe in transubstantiation?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 16, 2016, 10:10:57 PM
Interesting. So will the logic of the SF argument in favour of a United Ireland only be apparent to those who believe in transubstantiation?

No. The point is that those who have not been fed sectarian bigotry by their families will be more open to the argument.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 10:52:50 PM
Interesting. So will the logic of the SF argument in favour of a United Ireland only be apparent to those who believe in transubstantiation?

No. The point is that those who have not been fed sectarian bigotry by their families will be more open to the argument.

So if it is not to do with religion then why is relative birth rates important or even relevant?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 16, 2016, 11:11:45 PM
Sinn Fein is the mirror image of the DUP,using sectarianism as a tool to maintain the tribal vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 11:23:32 PM
Sinn Fein is the mirror image of the DUP,using sectarianism as a tool to maintain the tribal vote.

Just like broken clocks are occasionally correct so too does a WUM occasionally state something that they think is really controversial when its just a mundane fact
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 16, 2016, 11:35:25 PM
So if it is not to do with religion then why is relative birth rates important or even relevant?

It isn't directly to do with religion, but very few people from a Catholic background have been fed Orange colonialist supremacist bullshit so are not likely to be determined to maintain the colonialist NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 11:51:34 PM
So if it is not to do with religion then why is relative birth rates important or even relevant?

It isn't directly to do with religion, but very few people from a Catholic background have been fed Orange colonialist supremacist bullshit so are not likely to be determined to maintain the colonialist NI.

Firstly - I'd say very few people from a protestant background have been fed Orange colonialist supremacist bullshit.

Secondly - we are already people from a catholic background not buying to irish nationalism. On that basis why is the relative birth rates important.

Thirdly - is there any bullshit being fed to catholic kids??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2016, 12:06:11 AM
Firstly - I'd say very few people from a protestant background have been fed Orange colonialist supremacist bullshit.

Well they are voting for parties supportive of Orange colonialist supremacist bullshit, so they must have got it from somewhere.

Quote
Secondly - we are already people from a catholic background not buying to irish nationalism. On that basis why is the relative birth rates important.

I have distinguished in these threads between those supporting the union for colonialist reasons and those who support it for pragmatic reasons. The latter can be convinced to change their view if other pragmatic solutions are proposed, not that Sinn Féin are ever likely to do this.

Quote
Thirdly - is there any bullshit being fed to catholic kids??

hard to say, they are definitely getting too much sugar.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 17, 2016, 07:26:40 AM
People vote for the union because they consider themselves British.People vote for alleged anti Union parties because they consider themselves Irish (though in a referendum many of these wouldn't vote for a United Ireland).

But a high percentage of people consider themselves N Irish and don't vote at all.It is these people who are crucial to the sidelining of the failed political philosophies of unionism and nationalism,and the shame is they don't currently vote because they believe it's pointless to do so.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 17, 2016, 09:35:33 AM
Why do you say Unionism has failed? It's only ever been successful since NI was created.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 17, 2016, 09:43:21 AM
It has failed to convince the British Government and people that it is an integral part of the U.K.,unlike for example,Wales and Scotland has.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 17, 2016, 10:30:15 AM
Firstly - I'd say very few people from a protestant background have been fed Orange colonialist supremacist bullshit.

Well they are voting for parties supportive of Orange colonialist supremacist bullshit, so they must have got it from somewhere.

And all SF voters believe in a socialist republic outside the EU? All SF voters are pro-abortion? All SDLP voters are pro-life? All SF voters are ant-grammar schools and do not their kids through the unofficial 11+?

Secondly - we are already people from a catholic background not buying to irish nationalism. On that basis why is the relative birth rates important.

I have distinguished in these threads between those supporting the union for colonialist reasons and those who support it for pragmatic reasons. The latter can be convinced to change their view if other pragmatic solutions are proposed, not that Sinn Féin are ever likely to do this.
Are you are that someone living in Lanarkshire who voted against Scotish independence is a UK nationalist but someone in Antrim voting to stay in the UK is a colonialist? Or is anyone who feels British automatically a colonialist?

Thirdly - is there any bullshit being fed to catholic kids??

hard to say, they are definitely getting too much sugar.
Not in any way dodging the issue there
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 17, 2016, 11:26:36 AM
Part of the problem here is that neither side really understands the other.Nationalists think unionists are Irish,if they only could realise it,and Unionists think we are all British subjects because that's what the majority wants.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RealSpiritof98 on January 17, 2016, 11:53:31 AM
My loyalist friend said to me that he and I were British, i replied by saying that i respected his view but objected saying neither of us were indeed british. I was born on the island of Ireland hold an Irish passport therefore i have everyright to call myself Irish. Regarding my friend i explained to him that you were born in Northern Ireland and you hold a passport for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. therefore to his amusement i said he was northern Irish or a United Kindomian (or Ukish or Uker) you get my point.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 17, 2016, 11:56:22 AM
Part of the problem here is that neither side really understands the other.Nationalists think unionists are Irish,if they only could realise it,and Unionists think we are all British subjects because that's what the majority wants.
Arlene Foster was in the Irish Times talking about growing up in Fermanagh, the most westerly part of the UK.  WTF
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: snoopdog on January 17, 2016, 12:27:52 PM
I'm living in Dublin now but when I go home I notice there seems to be more of a northern irish identity popping up and Prob as much among the traditional nationalist community. Not only threatens any hope of a united ireland it also threatens the gaa. I see small clubs struggling to field in areas where there are the educate together schools. I doubt the gaa is played in these although I could be wrong. But I assume their ethos is a northern irish identity . I could be wrong though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2016, 01:43:26 PM
Fine to build a society based on  honesty, decency, work ethic, religious belief, respect, tolerance, plain speaking, thriftiness,temperance etc. But it would be quite malign to attempt to use this to foster a false division, people in Monaghan have these characteristics as much, if not more, than people in Fermanagh and there is no justification for a division between them. Fostering division in the name of reducing division is a singularly deceptive proposition.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 17, 2016, 07:47:39 PM
How are they divided? People can travel to Fermanagh from Monaghan and vice Versa.Fostering a N Irish identity will dilute the obsession with the UK or 26 counties,neither of whom wants us,understands us,or has our best interests at heart.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2016, 08:32:42 PM
How are they divided? People can travel to Fermanagh from Monaghan and vice Versa.Fostering a N Irish identity will dilute the obsession with the UK or 26 counties,neither of whom wants us,understands us,or has our best interests at heart.

Being able to travel to one place is a very modest ambition. Fostering a hyphenated diluted Irish identity is the eventual victory of colonialism, and indeed the end of the GAA in the 6 counties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 17, 2016, 09:23:36 PM
Why do you say Unionism has failed? It's only ever been successful since NI was created.
to have succeeded it would have to have built a sustainable state  commanding the loyalty of the people.v coulda shoulda woulda
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 17, 2016, 09:30:57 PM
Fostering a Northern Irish based culture is the only way of sidelining the extremes
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 17, 2016, 10:09:35 PM
Fostering a Northern Irish based culture is the only way of sidelining the extremes
Being an Irish man in Ireland is not an extreme you numpty
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 17, 2016, 10:23:25 PM

I dont think anyone in OWC has thought through the implications of the Tory project to cut government spending to 35% of GDP.
The NHS will be raped. Social spending will be eviscerated

The rate down South is around 42%-
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2016, 10:26:00 PM
Fostering a Northern Irish based culture is the only way of sidelining the extremes
Being an Irish man in Ireland is not an extreme you numpty

A notable feature of this debate is that normality, a person being recognised as a full citizen of their own country is characterised as extreme; while the extreme, a 17th century sectarian colonial project still existing in the 21st century, is proposed as normality.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ashman on January 17, 2016, 10:59:13 PM
The big thing in this  will be what will happen When Sinn Fein enter government in the 26 counties.

If it goes well then a UI is a real probability .

If it goes badly then it will be put back by 50 years . 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2016, 11:21:07 PM
The big thing in this  will be what will happen When Sinn Fein enter government in the 26 counties.

If it goes well then a UI is a real probability .

If it goes badly then it will be put back by 50 years .

Sadly, Sinn Féin give nationalism a bad name. Let's hope they do not enter government in the 26 counties soon as their immature policies would do real damage.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ashman on January 18, 2016, 12:25:48 AM
SF policies are geared to a certain demographic ( like all parties) .  They are at a certain point in their "domestication cycle" in this state and have to play to that.

They will be a different animal if they get in to government because simply they will have to be .

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 18, 2016, 12:53:58 AM
No doubt SF can do U turn when in government. The "make someone else pay for everything" brigade might not be happy with this and they might not be in the next government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 18, 2016, 07:49:59 AM
No doubt SF can do U turn when in government. The "make someone else pay for everything" brigade might not be happy with this and they might not be in the next government.
It might take a few iterations. Politics is often about luck.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 19, 2016, 09:49:06 AM
I think it is fair to say that around the time of the Rising not many people on this Island would have supported either the rising or complete separation from Britain. British handling of the rising accelerated what was to become the war of independence and eventually partition. If NI is to be reunited with the ROI it is going to take some time and some persuasion, not least of those of us who would designate as broadly nationalist. It will take outside events to accelerate this. Tony waxes lyrical about the divergence between North and South in cultural terms and assertion I don't thinks stands up. But no one has mentioned the very real divergence between NI and "the rest of the UK". This is happening at all levels, culturally unionists are not British but a bit of a hybrid between Scots Gaelic culture, lowland scots and marching, politically and economically there is a widening gulf and as English and Scottish Nationalism rises where exactly will that leave NI? There a regional differences in culture throughout this Island that make all of us slightly different and from observation I would say that North Monaghan and South Armagh are culturally closer than North and South Armagh. But the basis is culturally Irish, unless you are an Ulster Unionist of course. The difficulty with Tony's NI identity is that the identity and culture of both communities would have to be reflected and as we can from the Somme/Rising debate that's a one way street.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 19, 2016, 10:27:57 AM
from observation I would say that North Monaghan and South Armagh are culturally closer than North and South Armagh. But the basis is culturally Irish, unless you are an Ulster Unionist of course.
Now now. There is still protestant land for sale in monaghan that wouldn't change hands into that of a Catholic. Big wealthy unionist farmers. A few small but staunch orange halls. Sounds just like north Armagh!

I get the point though. For instance someone like Kilcoo in County Down is a world apart from somewhere like Hillsborough which could be no more than 15 miles away.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 11:28:37 AM
I suppose you dont grow up in the likes of Portadown without absorbing a lot of unionist culture,particularly in the pre troubles era when there was no segregated housing etc.I remember attending 11th night bonfires,which I found exciting as a child,and orange parades were in those days non contentious and synonomous with summer, school holidays.Northern Irish culture and identity is of course hugely influenced by all that is good in Irish Nationalist and Ulster Unionist culture.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 11:31:50 AM
Apples I have repeatedly said we are culturally different from both the UK and 26 counties and also that the people of these areas recognise this and class us as fundamentally different.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 19, 2016, 11:42:51 AM
Maybe the Simpsons have the answer...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AmoED-vGdAA
 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AmoED-vGdAA)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 19, 2016, 11:44:04 AM
Apples I have repeatedly said we are culturally different from both the UK and 26 counties and also that the people of these areas recognise this and class us as fundamentally different.

You have repeatedly said this, which doesn't make it so. Of course we are different from Britain, but please give us some examples of the cultural differences between the people of Middletown and Glaslough, or Cullaville and Inniskeen? If these differences are so great then some examples should be easy to find.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on January 19, 2016, 11:46:09 AM
To prove your point you compared Killarney and the shankill road. That said it all...

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 19, 2016, 12:44:14 PM
I suppose you dont grow up in the likes of Portadown without absorbing a lot of unionist culture,particularly in the pre troubles era when there was no segregated housing etc.I remember attending 11th night bonfires,which I found exciting as a child,and orange parades were in those days non contentious and synonomous with summer, school holidays.Northern Irish culture and identity is of course hugely influenced by all that is good in Irish Nationalist and Ulster Unionist culture.
My family are (were) from Portadown. They moved out before they were forced out. Family business was a sitting duck on the edge of the  nationalist part of town so it was a case of early retirement and bye bye Portadown. Probably a wise move, but sad that it had to happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 01:55:54 PM
Strange when many businesses in town centre thrived,and continue to do to the present day.Winnies,Bennetts,Knox,McQuillan,Morgans etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 19, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
I suppose you dont grow up in the likes of Portadown without absorbing a lot of unionist culture,particularly in the pre troubles era when there was no segregated housing etc.I remember attending 11th night bonfires,which I found exciting as a child,and orange parades were in those days non contentious and synonomous with summer, school holidays.Northern Irish culture and identity is of course hugely influenced by all that is good in Irish Nationalist and Ulster Unionist culture.
The Tunnel???? was always contentious, Garvaghy road became contentious as the population changed. Your blissful view of the 60's is not how I would have remembered them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 04:42:22 PM
Apples.I remember in the 60s the Priest organising a football tournament,with lads from Edgarstown,Tunnel etc.Ballyoran and Churchill Park werent built at the time.The troubles drove everyone apart from the middle class into sectarian ghettoes where both sides lived apart in the same deprived conditions.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 04:46:54 PM
Also remember playing football at YMCA in Jervis Street,and annual football primary school tournaments in Brownstown with all schools including catholic involved.No problems whatsoever.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 19, 2016, 04:48:19 PM
Also remember playing football at YMCA in Jervis Street,and annual football primary school tournament in Brownstown,with all schools including catholic involved.No problems whatsoever.

Aye, an no doubt the Protestant schools all came to the Gaalic schools tournaments.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 19, 2016, 04:57:10 PM
And I remember the Lambegs outside our chapel 4 miles from the Orange Hall with RUC/B Specials on hand for protection every night in July. I also remember my Dad's inability to find employment in firms because he was a catholic. I remember also workplaces adorned with union flegs and royal pictures, swings tied up on Sunday, generations in our parish forced into ghettos in the nearest town to manage the vote, I could go on. Halcyon Days Tony in the Orange State, I wish they were back...not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dunloy realist on January 19, 2016, 05:11:02 PM
My dad got a job many moons ago in gallaghers in ballymena. he told me he was over the moon to get into it as it was a great place to work and the long term benifit of being there would be worth it.

This was the mid 70's, and on his first day being shown the machine where he would be working his boss left him with the line "work hard and make your quota and at the end of the day remember your the token taig here, i was forced to put you in here. Some sort of equality bullshite we have to do to let your lot get jobs."

Same stories as others where the union flag was hung all over the place and bunting hung off his machine each twelfth. Pure sectarian hatred, nothing more.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 19, 2016, 05:26:46 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/living-in-england-has-given-me-new-confidence-in-my-irish-identity-1.2500911
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
I am not saying things were perfect,I've said before my mother practically lost her entire family due to emigration owing to sectarian discrimination,but I had a very good childhood,and my mum and dad worked in majority Protestant firms in Portadown and never once were subjected to sectarianism of any kind and made lifelong friends.

I don't think at any time Protestants and Catholics hated each other en masse,but living in the past,and nursing age old grievances,and hankering after the unattainable,full unity with peoples (that's UK and Southern Ireland) who neither understand nor want us,is not the way forward in my opinion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 19, 2016, 06:39:42 PM
I am not saying things were perfect,I've said before my mother practically lost her entire family due to emigration owing to sectarian discrimination,but I had a very good childhood,and my mum and dad worked in majority Protestant firms in Portadown and never once were subjected to sectarianism of any kind and made lifelong friends.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all relationships are problematic.

Quote from: T Fearon
I don't think at any time Protestants and Catholics hated each other en masse,but living in the past,and nursing age old grievances,and hankering after the unattainable,full unity with peoples (that's UK and Southern Ireland) who neither understand nor want us,is not the way forward in my opinion.

I think many people do not understand you, whatever about the generality. How about your description of those cultural differences between the people of Middletown and Glaslough, or Cullaville and Inniskeen?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 19, 2016, 06:41:52 PM
The 6 Cos will never be a separate State.
It will always be an unwanted part of the UK or a quasi autonomous part of an All Ireland political entity.
As for a separate "Northern Irish culture".....
What the Hell does it consist of?
6,000 Orange parades, pissing on Catholic Churches, Willie Frazer, Jamie Bwyson?
I think that would exclude 750,000 people at least from this new Identity/culture.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 19, 2016, 08:56:12 PM
The 6 Cos will never be a separate State.
It will always be an unwanted part of the UK or a quasi autonomous part of an All Ireland political entity.
As for a separate "Northern Irish culture".....
What the Hell does it consist of?
6,000 Orange parades, pissing on Catholic Churches, Willie Frazer, Jamie Bwyson?
I think that would exclude 750,000 people at least from this new Identity/culture.
A very traumatised and Incoherent polity that pretends everything is fine. If NI was a person she'd be Blanche Dubois from a streetcar named desire.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 10:36:44 PM
Armagniac,I accept there is a close resemblance in culture between Middletown and Glasslough ,just as many towns and villages in Northern Italy are more German or Austrian in culture than Italian,but it means nothing in the overall scheme of things.

Reasons why there will not be a United Ireland are principally:

Freestate abandoned the North in the 1920s.

Freestate dispensed with Articles 2 and 3 in 1998.

All of nationalist Ireland accepts the British "right" to govern the North.

Minister in free state government admitted freestate couldn't afford the North.

North is categorised under Freestate's Foreign Affairs Dept (they therefore regard us as Irish as Syria)

In short,if unionists became nationalists tomorrow there still wouldn't be a United Ireland.

I take no pleasure in pointing out these unpalatable facts.However why hanker after something that simply is not going to come about
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Maguire01 on January 19, 2016, 10:47:36 PM
Freestate dispensed with Articles 2 and 3 in 1998.
The "Freestate" didn't exist in 1998.
Even if it did, it was the people of Ireland, north and south, who voted to drop Articles 2 and 3.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 19, 2016, 10:53:50 PM
Armagniac,I accept there is a close resemblance in culture between Middletown and Glasslough ,just as many towns and villages in Northern Italy are more German or Austrian in culture than Italian,but it means nothing in the overall scheme of things.
was re

Well now that you mention, Alto Adige ensures the territorial integrity of Italy, despite some there who hanker for the former colonial power, a bit like Larne. 


Quote
Reasons why there will not be a United Ireland are principally:

Freestate abandoned the North in the 1920s.

Freestate dispensed with Articles 2 and 3 in 1998.

All of nationalist Ireland accepts the British "right" to govern the North.

Minister in free state government admitted freestate couldn't afford the North.

North is categorised under Freestate's Foreign Affairs Dept (they therefore regard us as Irish as Syria)

In short,if unionists became nationalists tomorrow there still wouldn't be a United Ireland.

I take no pleasure in pointing out these unpalatable facts.However why hanker after something that simply is not going to come about

People agreed that Britain should administer NI until there is nationalist majority, if unionists become nationalists as you say then then nobody thinks that Britain should be in NI. The only remaining problem as you say, is that NI is an economic basket case. What we need is a united Ireland, not a part of Ireland that works and hands over money to the other part. There is no advantage in NI remaining poor as a mechanism for preventing a united Ireland. If you want a common cause for the people of the 6 counties to come together on, then let that cause be one where they aim to achieve the economic success of the 26 counties or Scotland and stop being the indigent relation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 11:21:49 PM
Write to the Dublin Government with those requests?😂😂😂😂😂😂 The 26 county "success" is built on European money,and leaves that part of Ireland in thrall to Germany,it is no more successful than the North,in that it relies on foreign subsidies as well as bribing rich businesses and people with low corporation tax etc.It doesn't even have its own currency.Is this really the scenario you want to live in, even if the people of the south wanted you or me (which they don't).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 20, 2016, 12:12:39 AM
Write to the Dublin Government with those requests?😂😂😂😂😂😂 The 26 county "success" is built on European money,and leaves that part of Ireland in thrall to Germany,it is no more successful than the North,in that it relies on foreign subsidies as well as bribing rich businesses and people with low corporation tax etc.It doesn't even have its own currency.Is this really the scenario you want to live in, even if the people of the south wanted you or me (which they don't).

This is complete bollix and you well know it. NI gets EU grants along with every other poor region. "Bribing" corporations with low tax brings hundreds of thousands of well paid jobs and is such a good idea that  NI seems keen to adopt it. Having your own currency is not as important as having adequate quantities of it, being in the same situation as nations such as France and none the worse off for it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 20, 2016, 09:00:10 AM
Tony clearly on the wind up his arguments are incoherent and inconsistent not to mention contradictory.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 20, 2016, 09:31:24 AM
Tony clearly on the wind up his arguments are incoherent and inconsistent not to mention contradictory.
Clearly. I like his posts because (whether through fault or design) they encourage debate but there are massive holes in his arguments.

NI since it's creation has been nothing more than an abject failure. Being on the periphery of the state it is little more than an after thought in Westminster. Creating Our Wee Culture will change nothing economically. I know im generalising here but if Unionists, 300 odd years later, by some stroke of magic stopped resenting and repressing all things Irish, there'd be no need for creating a new culture 100 years later.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 20, 2016, 10:01:28 AM
Does this proposed "NI culture"  simply entail the Nationalist/Irish/Catholic people dumping all the things that make them NIC while the Unionists/British/Protestants keep all the things that make them UBP?
Or is it a case of - you lot stop parading and we'll stop learning/ using Irish? And so on?
What if a Cavan woman marries a Fermanagh man and moves 2 miles to live in his home place? Will she have to formally become "Northern Irish".
If an Inishowen native moves to South Armagh......
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 11:15:54 AM
Oh dear.Yes the status quo has produced an idyllic life for all here.Lets examine the options.Further integration with the UK? No chance their main parties won't even stand here.United Ireland? No chance,so called Irish nationalists North and South dont want it.Third,concentrate on the things that unite people in the North making the constitutional element irrelevant and weave the best elements of both communties' cultures into a common Northern Irish culture? No brainer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 20, 2016, 11:22:19 AM
Oh dear.Yes the status quo has produced an idyllic life for all here.Lets examine the options.Further integration with the UK? No chance their main parties won't even stand here.United Ireland? No chance,so called Irish nationalists North and South dont want it.Third,concentrate on the things that unite people in the North making the constitutional element irrelevant and weave the best elements of both communties' cultures into a common Northern Irish culture? No brainer.

All still funded by the British Government, yeah no brains more like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 20, 2016, 11:44:54 AM
weave the best elements of both communties' cultures into a common Northern Irish culture? No brainer.
Who would implement that?
Who will decide what are the best elements of both cultures?
Will there be a Culture Commission?
Will Tony be a Commissioner?
What will happen to those who don't adopt this new culture?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on January 20, 2016, 11:53:31 AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/living-in-england-has-given-me-new-confidence-in-my-irish-identity-1.2500911
For every Kylie Nobel there is a Tony Fearon.

In saying that I can see his argument.

"IF only themmuns would realise they are Irish like us. Britain doesnt want them!
"IF only themmuns would realise they live in the United Kingdom like us, Ireland cant afford them"

Somewhere in those 2 bubbles there has to be compromise!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 20, 2016, 12:06:15 PM
weave the best elements of both communties' cultures into a common Northern Irish culture? No brainer.
Who would implement that?
Who will decide what are the best elements of both cultures?
Will there be a Culture Commission?
Will Tony be a Commissioner?
What will happen to those who don't adopt this new culture?
The glaring problem with all of this is the inability of Unionists to concede anything to Nationalists, hence you get situations like the Causeway Coast and Glens Council. It has always been like this and that isn't changing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 20, 2016, 12:10:00 PM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 12:56:55 PM
Yawn.The whole aim of my proposal is to attract the 50% of the electorate who dont vote to the ballot box thus reducing the influence of negative unionism and nationalism.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on January 20, 2016, 01:22:10 PM
why not set up a new political party then?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 20, 2016, 01:35:36 PM
Yawn.The whole aim of my proposal is to attract the 50% of the electorate who dont vote to the ballot box thus reducing the influence of negative unionism and nationalism.

All whilst still being funded by the British Government?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 01:39:09 PM
Who else is going to fund it? Irish government  can't afford it.Who knows in time we might become self sustainable. I don't see any other option given there is no chance of a United Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 20, 2016, 01:43:55 PM
Who else is going to fund it? Irish government  can't afford it.Who knows in time we might become self sustainable. I don't see any other option given there is no chance of a United Ireland.

If Norn Iron is going have it's own identity how does that work when the British government influence every facet of life in the occupied six with its funding policy?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 20, 2016, 02:07:36 PM
Who else is going to fund it? Irish government  can't afford it.Who knows in time we might become self sustainable. I don't see any other option given there is no chance of a United Ireland.
why is there no chance of a UI? Unionism is a busted flush

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 20, 2016, 02:25:41 PM
Because everything is about economics now not politics, and T Fearon rightly states the Irish Government couldn't afford the North especially as it is a false economy with the British Government paying the majority of wages to inept, inefficient civil servants.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 02:44:57 PM
Seafoid I was at a Brexit conference in Newry recently.A Sinn Fein mEP asked Bertie if a Brexit wasnt an opportunity for a United Ireland.Bertie more or less told her to catch herself on and that consent was necessary blah blah.That reflects the southern attitude.Unity is not wanted and not affordable.As Professor John A Murphy,Cork, said not too long ago,the citizens of the south should be on their knees thanking God they dont have to sort out parading disputes etc
Can't say I blame them to be honest.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 20, 2016, 04:11:31 PM
Yet it is with the very people at the heart of these disputes that you want to forge a shared identity with? We can't get mutual respect yet here you are advocating that we all join hands and form some new national identity. Mind boggling.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 20, 2016, 04:41:33 PM
Why don't the 50% of the 6Co electorate that doesn't vote come out and vote Alliance if they don't want to
 be Unionist or Nationalist?
Maybe they're waiting for Tony to start a new party ? Northern Irish Tony Party??
Fearonistas? Pro life anti Irishness and Homosexuality Confederation or Plaihc for short?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 05:43:15 PM
The party that came some way to answering the needs of those who see themselves as Northern Irish was NI21.Look at the number of young people it attracted at its launch.A Party or parties like this,with strong leadership is required to make the breakthrough to capture the 50% who don't vote,and more and more people like me who are starting to vote on issues who previously voted tribally.The more a party like this grows politically,the less influence unionism and nationalism will have,and indeed it will precipitate a moderation and more tolerance in both unionist and nationalist camps

No one on this thread has proposed anything different than the tired status quo of Irish V British (neither of whom understands nor wants us) and the toxic divisiveness flowing from these two mutually exclusive polar opposites,which hasn't worked,isn't working, or never will work politically,because neither the British or Irish wants us basically.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 20, 2016, 05:47:55 PM
That NI21 thing went down well I must say ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 05:57:02 PM
Idea good,leadership poor.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 09:16:29 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/another-party-must-defend-ideals-of-ni21-34379207.html

Is this Irish rugby legend not correct in this assessment?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Arthur_Friend on January 20, 2016, 09:34:33 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/another-party-must-defend-ideals-of-ni21-34379207.html

Is this Irish rugby legend not correct in this assessment?

Naw.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 09:36:42 PM
Could we have a little expansion please?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 20, 2016, 09:42:08 PM
Seafoid I was at a Brexit conference in Newry recently.A Sinn Fein mEP asked Bertie if a Brexit wasnt an opportunity for a United Ireland.Bertie more or less told her to catch herself on and that consent was necessary blah blah.That reflects the southern attitude.Unity is not wanted and not affordable.As Professor John A Murphy,Cork, said not too long ago,the citizens of the south should be on their knees thanking God they dont have to sort out parading disputes etc
Can't say I blame them to be honest.
Tony, Bertie is yesterday's man. I am thinking more of voters in 25 years after the UK falls apart.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 09:45:29 PM
Bertie's views are reflective of the majority of people in the South.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 20, 2016, 09:59:32 PM
Bertie's views are reflective of the majority of people in the South.

What should Bertie have said? If Britain leaves the EU we will invade forthwith? He said there had to be consent, which isn't surprising as he was the architect of the Good Friday agreement.  I'm sure he didn't say, whatever happens we don't want you.
The Brexit debate is a good chance for debate on the future of the 6 counties, but the handout mentality is so engrained there that debate is constrained by the place being a basket case.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 20, 2016, 10:02:57 PM
Bertie's views are reflective of the majority of people in the South.
They won't be 25 years from now. Unionist Hegemony is doomed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 10:08:41 PM
25 years will be much too late for me any way.And the South will just absorb the North,and pay the stacks of additional money required without a whimper? I doubt it.

Who knows what anyone's preference will be in 25 years time?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 20, 2016, 11:40:42 PM
How much does the British exchequer get for the 6 Cos?
Or does any effer pay any tax at all up there?
In 25 years time I suspect the British Tories will have chopped off the hands of the beggar mentality up there and theywill be close to paying their way.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 21, 2016, 01:21:17 AM
Seafoid I was at a Brexit conference in Newry recently.A Sinn Fein mEP asked Bertie if a Brexit wasnt an opportunity for a United Ireland.Bertie more or less told her to catch herself on and that consent was necessary blah blah.That reflects the southern attitude.Unity is not wanted and not affordable.As Professor John A Murphy,Cork, said not too long ago,the citizens of the south should be on their knees thanking God they dont have to sort out parading disputes etc
Can't say I blame them to be honest.
Tony, Bertie is yesterday's man. I am thinking more of voters in 25 years after the UK falls apart.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 21, 2016, 08:04:01 AM
I'd have thought a Brexit would offer some opportunities for unification. I'd say a lot of the Catholic "unionists" like Tony would soon change their tune when we're left with a bunch of ex-eton tory boys running the place for the forseeable - does anyone really trust them with the nhs???  I'd imagine the Scots would push for another indy ref so they could well be gone. There'd be a land border with the EU and that could potentially mean checkpoints, patrols and possibly even fences. All sounds a bit extreme but I'd say those "small u" unionist Catholics who have no allegiance to the UK other than pragmatism would be persuaded to vote for unification.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on January 21, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"
If that's the case how come they still march up and down it a few times a year?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on January 21, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Yet it is with the very people at the heart of these disputes that you want to forge a shared identity with? We can't get mutual respect yet here you are advocating that we all join hands and form some new national identity. Mind boggling.
Not really mind boggling. If they are as entrenched as you say they will never accept a UI so no chance of a National identity that way.
Tonys suggestion "find common ground with them, allow them to feel Northern Irish, rather than British" would be a step towards giving them the confidence to let go of the GB apron strings.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 21, 2016, 10:24:21 AM
Yet it is with the very people at the heart of these disputes that you want to forge a shared identity with? We can't get mutual respect yet here you are advocating that we all join hands and form some new national identity. Mind boggling.
Not really mind boggling. If they are as entrenched as you say they will never accept a UI so no chance of a National identity that way.
Tonys suggestion "find common ground with them, allow them to feel Northern Irish, rather than British" would be a step towards giving them the confidence to let go of the GB apron strings.

But they can't let go of the GB apron strings as GB funds Northern Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 21, 2016, 10:24:44 AM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"
If that's the case how come they still march up and down it a few times a year?
ask Boyd Douglas
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 21, 2016, 10:34:59 AM
Yet it is with the very people at the heart of these disputes that you want to forge a shared identity with? We can't get mutual respect yet here you are advocating that we all join hands and form some new national identity. Mind boggling.
Not really mind boggling. If they are as entrenched as you say they will never accept a UI so no chance of a National identity that way.
Tonys suggestion "find common ground with them, allow them to feel Northern Irish, rather than British" would be a step towards giving them the confidence to let go of the GB apron strings.
I'm not saying they have to adopt any national identity. I would never advocate telling someone from Northern Ireland what identity they should adopt.  What I would tell them to do is empathise, understand and respect other cultures.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 21, 2016, 11:06:37 AM
A toughjob on your hands there General.
Their way of dealing with other cultures to date has been burning them out!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on January 21, 2016, 11:13:23 AM
If Tony doesn't get NI21 2.0 soon then he'll just have to rely on Fianna Fail to carry the baton of partitionism!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 11:21:44 AM
Yawn.TUV councillor makes laughable claim that Dungiven is a No Go Area for protestants and even more laughingly a lot on this Board cant see through the electioneering sham fight.Expect more laughable claims,which no one sane takes seriously as the assembly elections draw near.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 11:30:39 AM
Its to sideline idiots like Boyd that there is a need for a new party here to emphasise commonality and stop feeding divisiveness.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 21, 2016, 11:44:06 AM
Yawn.TUV councillor makes laughable claim that Dungiven is a No Go Area for protestants and even more laughingly a lot on this Board cant see through the electioneering sham fight.Expect more laughable claims,which no one sane takes seriously as the assembly elections draw near.
Plenty of the garbage spewed by politicians is playing to the gallery. Plenty of it isn't. Him being an anti-GFA TUV extremist I'll hazard a guess that it's the latter that applies in this case.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 21, 2016, 12:14:18 PM
Unfortunately Unionism is continuously involved in these so called sham fights. Its called not an inch. It is possible for a statelet to have alternative nationalities. The Baltic states for example have ethnic Russian populations. Just so happens we are ethnically Irish for the most part, even a large block of unionists would be ethnically Irish. There are no positive examples of Unionists being generous to the so called "minority", but on the other hand SF and the SDLP bend over backways to be positive and generous.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 21, 2016, 04:24:12 PM
Its to sideline idiots like Boyd that there is a need for a new party here to emphasise commonality and stop feeding divisiveness.
Haven't ye Alliance and the attempt of NI 21 that you and the rest of those who feel like you can join??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 04:37:24 PM
Yes and the SDLP and Sinn Fein are successful in stopping stunt politics? Classic case today McGuinness offers to attend 12 July celebrations knowing full well OO wont invite him,making him look like a poor innocent victim whose offer was shunned.On and on this shite goes and real political problems are not addressed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 04:38:20 PM
By the way TUV loons get little or no votes from unionist community
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 04:52:59 PM
Problem is unionists see any concession as not to nationalists but to Sinn Fein.But there are good things happening.DUP mayor of Armagh Banbridge and Craigavon officially welcomed Michael D Higgins to the Tommy Makem centre in Keady recently.A few years ago he'd be protesting about such a visit.Linda Ervine runs full irish classes for unionists etc.Time to stop moping.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 21, 2016, 05:24:25 PM
Who's moping? Other than you?

MMcG didn't offer anything he was asked by a journalist and gave an answer.

And congratulations to the DUP mayor on carrying out his duties. That must have taken a lot of courage  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 05:42:16 PM
You have to admit it's a step forward.By the way I cannot see how Sinn Fein can oppose Orange parades anywhere now when one of their most senior members indicates his willingness to attend 12th of July celebrations.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on January 21, 2016, 05:45:41 PM
By the way TUV loons get little or no votes from unionist community

Jim Allister got nearly 76,000 first preference votes in the Euro poll in 2014
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 06:04:57 PM
He also got into Stormont on the sixth or seventh count to the assembly the last time.One man band at best
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:41:41 PM
Part of the problem here is that neither side really understands the other.Nationalists think unionists are Irish,if they only could realise it,and Unionists think we are all British subjects because that's what the majority wants.
Arlene Foster was in the Irish Times talking about growing up in Fermanagh, the most westerly part of the UK.  WTF
Perhaps she is a geographer or has an atlas?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:44:50 PM

I dont think anyone in OWC has thought through the implications of the Tory project to cut government spending to 35% of GDP.
The NHS will be raped. Social spending will be eviscerated

The rate down South is around 42%-

That argument is meaningless in the absence of up to date GDP per capita data and some insight into the relative sustainability of bot the GDP and the percentage committed to social spending
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:51:48 PM
The 6 Cos will never be a separate State.
It will always be an unwanted part of the UK or a quasi autonomous part of an All Ireland political entity.
As for a separate "Northern Irish culture".....
What the Hell does it consist of?
6,000 Orange parades, pissing on Catholic Churches, Willie Frazer, Jamie Bwyson?
I think that would exclude 750,000 people at least from this new Identity/culture.
A very traumatised and Incoherent polity that pretends everything is fine. If NI was a person she'd be Blanche Dubois from a streetcar named desire.

It would be difficult to argue that either NI or RoI was a success post 1922. But the starting point in 1922 cannot be wished away. I don't think anybody has set out a coherent argument that a united, independent Ireland would have been a success in 1922, or would be in 2016, or for that measure the period in between. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:56:13 PM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"

Neither here nor there?  Shocking stuff
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:58:02 PM
Who else is going to fund it? Irish government  can't afford it.Who knows in time we might become self sustainable. I don't see any other option given there is no chance of a United Ireland.

If Norn Iron is going have it's own identity how does that work when the British government influence every facet of life in the occupied six with its funding policy?

Explain to me the UK funding policy for NI?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:02:34 PM
Who else is going to fund it? Irish government  can't afford it.Who knows in time we might become self sustainable. I don't see any other option given there is no chance of a United Ireland.
why is there no chance of a UI? Unionism is a busted flush
The appetite for a UI is unproven in either NI or RoI. There are certainly plenty who would identify themselves as nationalist in NI but wouldnt actually vote for a UI in a referendum. Nobody is seriously going to fund a full referendum to take it beyond this sort of anecdotal evidence
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:04:39 PM
Yet it is with the very people at the heart of these disputes that you want to forge a shared identity with? We can't get mutual respect yet here you are advocating that we all join hands and form some new national identity. Mind boggling.

The key there is mutual. There is not enough mutual respect in NI. All of NI has a distance to travel on this one
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:09:03 PM
Who knows what anyone's preference will be in 25 years time?

Contemplating bum fun in the winter of your years?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:11:05 PM
A toughjob on your hands there General.
Their way of dealing with other cultures to date has been burning them out!

Who is the their in that sentence?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:14:29 PM
Unfortunately Unionism is continuously involved in these so called sham fights. Its called not an inch. It is possible for a statelet to have alternative nationalities. The Baltic states for example have ethnic Russian populations. Just so happens we are ethnically Irish for the most part, even a large block of unionists would be ethnically Irish. There are no positive examples of Unionists being generous to the so called "minority", but on the other hand SF and the SDLP bend over backways to be positive and generous.

Generous and positive in the naming of shared spaces? Or are some spaces not to be shared?

Are we all absolutely sure that a 1922 UI would not have resulted in any abuses by the majority? After all RoI officials have no record of abusing their position
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 10:43:29 PM
Smelmouth,I doubt if I'll be alive in 25 years time,never mind preferring anything!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 22, 2016, 12:00:22 AM
A toughjob on your hands there General.
Their way of dealing with other cultures to date has been burning them out!

Who is the their in that sentence?
Unionists/ " Ulster British"/ "Loyalists"/ or whatever you want to call them or they want to call themselves.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 22, 2016, 02:17:53 PM
Yes and the SDLP and Sinn Fein are successful in stopping stunt politics? Classic case today McGuinness offers to attend 12 July celebrations knowing full well OO wont invite him,making him look like a poor innocent victim whose offer was shunned.On and on this shite goes and real political problems are not addressed.
Tony he didn't offer, he said he would attend if invited in response to a question, slight difference.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 22, 2016, 07:13:40 PM
He brought the matter up,spotted an opportunity to score points.Its the way both sides get on constantly
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 22, 2016, 07:49:39 PM
He brought the matter up,spotted an opportunity to score points.Its the way both sides get on constantly

Why don't they invite him then?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 22, 2016, 11:11:21 PM
Er they quoted over 300 reasons.The Orangemen killed by the IRA during the troubles.But Martin gets to look like the reasonable one here,and will win votes on account of this,and on it goes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 22, 2016, 11:24:41 PM
Er they quoted over 300 reasons.The Orangemen killed by the IRA during the troubles.But Martin gets to look like the reasonable one here,and will win votes on account of this,and on it goes.

They are commemorating a battle with 3000 killed in it, that can't pretend to be choosy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 07:45:46 AM
They are unlikely to invite a member of an organisation who killed over 300 of their members in,what they perceive was a sectarian terrorist campaign,to their commemorations,are they? I have no admiration for the Orange Order,and another plus point of normal politics here would be a significant diminution of their profile and influence.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 08:41:54 AM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"

Neither here nor there?  Shocking stuff
Read back a few pages
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 08:48:13 AM
You have to admit it's a step forward.By the way I cannot see how Sinn Fein can oppose Orange parades anywhere now when one of their most senior members indicates his willingness to attend 12th of July celebrations.
Anything is a step forward for the uber British nationalist Craigavon DUP.

Personally speaking I don't oppose OO marches. They don't really annoy me. I don't think anyone could be blamed however for opposing the North Belfast parade after one of their members flattened a girl in his car.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 08:51:25 AM
Yet it is with the very people at the heart of these disputes that you want to forge a shared identity with? We can't get mutual respect yet here you are advocating that we all join hands and form some new national identity. Mind boggling.

The key there is mutual. There is not enough mutual respect in NI. All of NI has a distance to travel on this one
Totally agree. Mutual respect and understanding is what's needed. I am biased of course but I get the impression that this is far more evident from SDLP and SF than it is any of the Unionist parties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 08:56:52 AM
The Orange Order can hardly be blamed corporately for one member's unsanctioned actions.If McGuinness expresses his willingness to attend July12th celebrations then Sinn Fein cannot logically oppose any Orange Parades.

However if normal politics and parties came to the fore here,the Orange Order would be an irrelevancy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 09:05:07 AM
Why not? MMcG has 300 reasons directed at him for no invite even though he isn't responsible. The OO in Belfast is strongly linked with the UVF and the sheer hypocrisy of those Orangemen makes me laugh. Non other than a Shankill butcher acting as a marshall! In any case from what I am aware SF call for dialogue and oppose parades on the basis that the OO don't like talking to "terrorists".

So long as NI exists we won't have normal poltics, a normal economy or a normal society!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 09:59:45 AM
All down to perceptions,both sides perceive their armies weren't terrorists just defenders of the people.

N Ireland does exist and will continue to exist for two simple reasons. 1.The majority of its people,now arguably on both sides,do not want constitutional change. 2.The freestate neither wants nor can afford N Ireland.

Once you accept these blindingly obvious and irrefutable facts,you by logic,accept that the politics of unionism and nationalism are obsolete and that new parties and a new political focus is needed,on attainable goals like fostering and prioritising  a common Northern Irish ethos and identity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 23, 2016, 11:15:03 AM
All completely funded by the British Government!  I can it working!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 11:33:39 AM
The alternative is? Funded by the Irish government? Definitely can't see that working,without a pile of bailouts
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 23, 2016, 11:49:47 AM
How much tax/ revenue do the Brits collect in the 6 Cos.
We keep hearing how much they put in but never how much they take out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 23, 2016, 11:50:45 AM
But you can't have a Northern Ireland ethos when the British government holds the purse strings, where on the British Cabinet there is a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, where the economy is held up by the coffers of Queen Lizzy for the inept inefficient Civil Servants that are paid to support this false economy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 23, 2016, 11:54:08 AM
I don't believe that people in the 6 counties are inferior to those in the 26 counties. I don't wish to see them subsidised by the 26 counties nor do I see any need for them to be, people need to buck up and work for a United Ireland in which both parts are equal not one leeching off the other.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 12:02:04 PM
Oh dear.The message,no,fact that the 26 counties does not want,nor can it afford,the North has not penetrated minds here.

Apparently at one stage the North of Ireland was a net contributor to the British exchequer,and who knows, if a new political focus was found, new investment might be attracted and those days could return.

Britain wants nothing to do with the North,I concede,but unfortunately (for the British) it is the constitutional guardian.Far from wishing to impose British culture,or anything else British here,it is happy enough (or obliged) to pay the bills and let us get on with it,hopefully in a peaceful manner without causing them or anyone else any problems. For that reason,the shaping of a Northern Irish ethos,is entirely in the hands of the Northern Irish people.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 23, 2016, 12:28:44 PM
An awful lot of people in the 6 Cos don't particularly want to shape a " northern Irish ethos" whatever that might be.
Time for ye to get an economy up and running and then everyone will want ye.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:54:04 PM
A toughjob on your hands there General.
Their way of dealing with other cultures to date has been burning them out!

Who is the their in that sentence?
Unionists/ " Ulster British"/ "Loyalists"/ or whatever you want to call them or they want to call themselves.

And is "burning out" the typical reaction of an average unionist to another culture?

Any examples of "burning out" or similar by republicans?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 03:55:55 PM
Yes and a normal economy and society will not be built as long a unionist and nationalist tribalism prevails which is my basic point.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:56:33 PM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"

Neither here nor there?  Shocking stuff
Read back a few pages

What post are you directing me to that supports a claim that it is "neither here nor there" whether an area of NI is a no-go area for one section of the community?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:58:42 PM
Yet it is with the very people at the heart of these disputes that you want to forge a shared identity with? We can't get mutual respect yet here you are advocating that we all join hands and form some new national identity. Mind boggling.

The key there is mutual. There is not enough mutual respect in NI. All of NI has a distance to travel on this one
Totally agree. Mutual respect and understanding is what's needed. I am biased of course but I get the impression that this is far more evident from SDLP and SF than it is any of the Unionist parties.

If you basing this on politicians then maybe so (mainly because of SDLP) but in terms of everyday people I would have thought the absence of respect is evenly spread.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 04:00:21 PM
How much tax/ revenue do the Brits collect in the 6 Cos.
We keep hearing how much they put in but never how much they take out.

The only important figure is the difference between the 2. Look up the Barnett formula
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 04:16:35 PM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"

Neither here nor there?  Shocking stuff
Read back a few pages

What post are you directing me to that supports a claim that it is "neither here nor there" whether an area of NI is a no-go area for one section of the community?
When I said neither here nor there, I was referring to the fact that community relations should not impact on community need.

Would you (for example) suggest that the Shankill (or Falls) be relieved of facilities because many people there have to be fenced off from "themmuns"? I don't see what is shocking about any of that.

And when I said read back I was referring to posts regarding the OO who parade in Dungiven. So it would seem Dungiven isn't exactly the no go area it is made out to be - again irrelevant
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 23, 2016, 04:32:24 PM
A toughjob on your hands there General.
Their way of dealing with other cultures to date has been burning them out!

Who is the their in that sentence?
Unionists/ " Ulster British"/ "Loyalists"/ or whatever you want to call them or they want to call themselves.

And is "burning out" the typical reaction of an average unionist to another culture?

Any examples of "burning out" or similar by republicans?
Any news reportsI've seen were about Poles, Lithuanians and black sskinned foreigners being burnt out if LoyalistUnionist areas. I haven't seen or heard of anything similar in the Nationalist areas. Obviously Nationalist community able to handle other cultures better.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 04:39:50 PM
A toughjob on your hands there General.
Their way of dealing with other cultures to date has been burning them out!

Who is the their in that sentence?
Unionists/ " Ulster British"/ "Loyalists"/ or whatever you want to call them or they want to call themselves.

And is "burning out" the typical reaction of an average unionist to another culture?

Any examples of "burning out" or similar by republicans?
Any news reportsI've seen were about Poles, Lithuanians and black sskinned foreigners being burnt out if LoyalistUnionist areas. I haven't seen or heard of anything similar in the Nationalist areas. Obviously Nationalist community able to handle other cultures better.

There could be 2 explanations for that:
1) there is right wing, facist streak to loyalist paramilitary organisations and they are behind the attacks or let it be known they will tolerate this.
2) imigrant populations in urban areas disproportionately tend towards protestant residential areas.

I think its likely to be 1). But it would be entirely wrong to use that as an insight into unionists as a whole
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 04:48:35 PM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"

Neither here nor there?  Shocking stuff
Read back a few pages

What post are you directing me to that supports a claim that it is "neither here nor there" whether an area of NI is a no-go area for one section of the community?
When I said neither here nor there, I was referring to the fact that community relations should not impact on community need.

Would you (for example) suggest that the Shankill (or Falls) be relieved of facilities because many people there have to be fenced off from "themmuns"? I don't see what is shocking about any of that.

And when I said read back I was referring to posts regarding the OO who parade in Dungiven. So it would seem Dungiven isn't exactly the no go area it is made out to be - again irrelevant

I understand your position a bit now. I don't fully agree with it though.

If an area has a populations that is entirely constituted by one version of themmuns then it cannot be deprived of facilities.

If an area has some split to its population (as almost every area does) and it is not going to to serve all the community, as the majority version of themmuns will claim it as their own, then public funding might be better spent elsewhere. Omagh CBS got a lovely new 3G pitch  (the bees knees at the time) by inviting the local hockey club to train there and generate a cross community dimension to their funding application. It wasn't just a case that it could be used for hockey but evidence of real efforts to ensure it would be used for hockey. This sort of consideration has been around for years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on January 23, 2016, 08:57:51 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.

Even a cursory glance of the site over the years would reveal a succession of posts and posters who interpret the worst excess of loyalism as a stereotype of unioinism. A delve into loyalisms or the followers of Jimbo Alistair and the like will reveal an equal and opposite example of this type of mentality being exhibited by the dyed-in-the-wool, blind to the world, ingornant, antediluvian, backward looking, backward thinking, backward dreamimg, backward tugging numpties that are vocal but unrepresentive of the state we are in or where we are trying to go. Vocal doesn't do it justice. They are very vocal but the noise they make and the dominance it holds over the news does not in any way mean that ordinary everyday people living in NI think or behave in a similar manner.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 24, 2016, 09:46:31 AM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
There are morons on both sides that is a given.

The lowest of the low. I don't ever recall any equivalent to the Shankill Butchers or UDA Romper Rooms. Loyalism was a lot more confrontational and the overwhelming majority of killings were borne out of a sectarian hatred of Catholics. Not that Republicanism has not committed it's own fair share of atrocities, but if the sectarian hatred was equal on both sides then a lot, lot more innocent Protestant civilians would have died.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 11:26:08 AM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
There are morons on both sides that is a given.

The lowest of the low. I don't ever recall any equivalent to the Shankill Butchers or UDA Romper Rooms. Loyalism was a lot more confrontational and the overwhelming majority of killings were borne out of a sectarian hatred of Catholics. Not that Republicanism has not committed it's own fair share of atrocities, but if the sectarian hatred was equal on both sides then a lot, lot more innocent Protestant civilians would have died.
What about the bombing campaigns? Using bombs as a weapon when targeting specific individuals seems to pay a regard to the people around them as something less than your equal. Look at the bombs in Shankill, Bangor, Teebane, Enniskillen, Brighton, Hyde Park, Mulloughmore, Aldershot, Guildford, Westminster or the M62 bus bomb. Repblicans will claim there was a target at the centre of those attacks but it is inescapable that the protestant or British people likely (and sadly actually) destroyed in that fall out were expendable and worth the consideration normally accorded to humans. And then there are the bombs with no specific target. Just plant a bomb that is likely to kill these expendable protestants or british civilians  - the bomb at the BBC, the Ealing bomb, Markethill, Manchester, London Docks, Newtownards, Bishopsgate, Warrington, the London Underground, Bangor, the Baltic Exchange, St Albans, Londond Victoria, the Stock Exchange, Harrods, Dunmurry, La Mon, the London Hilton, Claudy, Coleraine, Birmingham. A sad litany that shows scant record for these lesser mortals. And that doesnt even go into those days like bloody friday (of which there were many) when bombs where spread around like confetti on an individual day. Over 130 such bombs in "protestant areas"

And that is not to say that republicans were not capable of direct shootings where the victim's only crime was to be protestant or to be likely to be protestant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 24, 2016, 12:10:01 PM
Now we're into the familiar our thugs weren't as bad as their thugs argument😮
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 24, 2016, 02:45:33 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
There are morons on both sides that is a given.

The lowest of the low. I don't ever recall any equivalent to the Shankill Butchers or UDA Romper Rooms. Loyalism was a lot more confrontational and the overwhelming majority of killings were borne out of a sectarian hatred of Catholics. Not that Republicanism has not committed it's own fair share of atrocities, but if the sectarian hatred was equal on both sides then a lot, lot more innocent Protestant civilians would have died.
The killing of Margaret Wright 20 years later was also despicable. One of their own.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 03:27:17 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
There are morons on both sides that is a given.

The lowest of the low. I don't ever recall any equivalent to the Shankill Butchers or UDA Romper Rooms. Loyalism was a lot more confrontational and the overwhelming majority of killings were borne out of a sectarian hatred of Catholics. Not that Republicanism has not committed it's own fair share of atrocities, but if the sectarian hatred was equal on both sides then a lot, lot more innocent Protestant civilians would have died.
The killing of Margaret Wright 20 years later was also despicable. One of their own.

A despicable killing. But not because she was "one of their own"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
Now we're into the familiar our thugs weren't as bad as their thugs argument😮

This isn't the point. The thugs are wrong in any case.

The point is that you have one set of mainstream parties promoting a sectarian 17th century colonisation project and another promoting a democratic society where people work with those around them regardless of their ethnic origins. What has happened is that people have sought to divert attention from the moral imbalance in this situation by referring to carefully edited whataboutery of certain types of thuggery.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:32:18 PM
Now we're into the familiar our thugs weren't as bad as their thugs argument😮

This isn't the point. The thugs are wrong in any case.
The point is that a sectarian murder is equally wrong where its a catholic or protestant that is murdered. And the murderes are equally to be condemned and legally pursued. Anybody equivocating on this point (which some on this site have done) has some sort of serious mental malfunction.

The point is that you have one set of mainstream parties promoting a sectarian 17th century colonisation project and another promoting a democratic society where people work with those around them regardless of their ethnic origins. What has happened is that people have sought to divert attention from the moral imbalance in this situation by referring to carefully edited whataboutery of certain types of thuggery.

Mainstream unionist politicians will advocate the union. So what?
It would be wrong to throw about accusations of whataboutery if you are going to label the union a "sectarian 17th century colonisation".  If someone feels British what relevance is the events of the 17t century? In Ulster there was a brtual bit effective plantation. This ultimately changes the demographic of the future and therefore the democracy of the 21st century. The relevance of the project originally being a colonisation is what exactly? And as for sectarian - are everyday unioinist more or less sectarian that everyday nationalists?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 04:38:40 PM
Mainstream unionist politicians will advocate the union. So what?
It would be wrong to throw about accusations of whataboutery if you are going to label the union a "sectarian 17th century colonisation".  If someone feels British what relevance is the events of the 17t century? In Ulster there was a brtual bit effective plantation. This ultimately changes the demographic of the future and therefore the democracy of the 21st century. The relevance of the project originally being a colonisation is what exactly?

It isn't right to colonise people for any period of time. It is even less right to carry on trying to do it for 400 years.

Quote
And as for sectarian - are everyday unioinist more or less sectarian that everyday nationalists?

Of course. Unionists wish to retain a sectarian entity, Northern Ireland, and Nationalists wish to remove it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:49:00 PM
Mainstream unionist politicians will advocate the union. So what?
It would be wrong to throw about accusations of whataboutery if you are going to label the union a "sectarian 17th century colonisation".  If someone feels British what relevance is the events of the 17t century? In Ulster there was a brtual bit effective plantation. This ultimately changes the demographic of the future and therefore the democracy of the 21st century. The relevance of the project originally being a colonisation is what exactly?

It isn't right to colonise people for any period of time. It is even less right to carry on trying to do it for 400 years.
So what would you do with pro-union votes? GFA and all that?

Quote
And as for sectarian - are everyday unioinist more or less sectarian that everyday nationalists?

Of course. Unionists wish to retain a sectarian entity, Northern Ireland, and Nationalists wish to remove it.
In what way is it sectarian today other than the sectarian attitudes of people on both sides?

You are confident that a UI in 1922 would have been less sectarian than partition?
You are confident that a UI now would be less sectarian th\n what we have now?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 06:01:26 PM
So what would you do with pro-union votes? GFA and all that?


You are confident that a UI in 1922 would have been less sectarian than partition?

Alternative history is always a bit tricky. From the start the unionists set out to wreck a UI rather than work to get a proper settlement for themselves within it, so they were committed to sectarianism all along.

Quote from: LCohen
You are confident that a UI now would be less sectarian th\n what we have now?

Yes, in the traditional sense. We'd probably get together and try to stop the place being taken over by Muslims.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 24, 2016, 07:11:53 PM
I think if you can't differentiate between the two ideologies and the actors involved then you need to read a bit more.

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-tribal-bigotry-is-not-a-response-to-ira-violence-it-was-there-before-26745097.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 24, 2016, 09:32:04 PM
So what would you do with pro-union votes? GFA and all that?


You are confident that a UI in 1922 would have been less sectarian than partition?

Alternative history is always a bit tricky. From the start the unionists set out to wreck a UI rather than work to get a proper settlement for themselves within it, so they were committed to sectarianism all along.

Quote from: LCohen
You are confident that a UI now would be less sectarian th\n what we have now?

Yes, in the traditional sense. We'd probably get together and try to stop the place being taken over by Muslims.

Interested to find out how you are going back any of this up.

And what are you going to do with them unionist votes? That bit is missing from your post
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on January 24, 2016, 09:48:34 PM
I think if you can't differentiate between the two ideologies and the actors involved then you need to read a bit more.

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-tribal-bigotry-is-not-a-response-to-ira-violence-it-was-there-before-26745097.html
If some boyo kills someone because they are a catholic then they will treated as scum and should be pursued by the law.
If some boyo kills someone because they are a protestant then they will treated as scum and should be pursued by the law.
If some boyo reacts to the murder of a fellow protestant by deciding to become "an actor" and to kill someone because they are a catholic then they will treated as scum and should be pursued by the law.
If some boyo reacts to the murder of a fellow catholic by deciding to become "an actor" and to kill someone because they are a protestant then they will treated as scum and should be pursued by the law.

There is no difference and no differentiation

There is an ideology of a union. Its a legitimate ideology but within it there is a bitter and twisted ideology that would never accept a democratically mandated UI, that wants to keep the 2 communities apart and has no interest in a shared future or tolerating other cultures. That ideology is a subset of the unionist ideology and does not represent the whole.

There is an ideology of a united ireland. Its a legitimate ideology but within it there is a bitter and twisted ideology that cannot accept that there is a majority in favour of the union today and therefore we remain within the UK. That sub-set wants to keep the 2 communities apart and has no interest in a share future or tolerating other cultures. That ideology is a subset of the nationalist ideology and does not represent the whole.

The extremes are equally reprehensible but there is heck of a lot of decent people getting on with life. Regrettably too many of these people have turned off politics and have allowed the stage to be dominated by the nutters
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on January 24, 2016, 10:13:46 PM
I think if you can't differentiate between the two ideologies and the actors involved then you need to read a bit more.

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-tribal-bigotry-is-not-a-response-to-ira-violence-it-was-there-before-26745097.html
If some boyo kills someone because they are a catholic then they will treated as scum and should be pursued by the law.
If some boyo kills someone because they are a protestant then they will treated as scum and should be pursued by the law.
If some boyo reacts to the murder of a fellow protestant by deciding to become "an actor" and to kill someone because they are a catholic then they will treated as scum and should be pursued by the law.
If some boyo reacts to the murder of a fellow catholic by deciding to become "an actor" and to kill someone because they are a protestant then they will treated as scum and should be pursued by the law.

There is no difference and no differentiation

There is an ideology of a union. Its a legitimate ideology but within it there is a bitter and twisted ideology that would never accept a democratically mandated UI, that wants to keep the 2 communities apart and has no interest in a shared future or tolerating other cultures. That ideology is a subset of the unionist ideology and does not represent the whole.

There is an ideology of a united ireland. Its a legitimate ideology but within it there is a bitter and twisted ideology that cannot accept that there is a majority in favour of the union today and therefore we remain within the UK. That sub-set wants to keep the 2 communities apart and has no interest in a share future or tolerating other cultures. That ideology is a subset of the nationalist ideology and does not represent the whole.

The extremes are equally reprehensible but there is heck of a lot of decent people getting on with life. Regrettably too many of these people have turned off politics and have allowed the stage to be dominated by the nutters

100,000 of them turn up at scarva each year to get on with their life, regrettably too many of these people don't think about the reality of their actions and put it down to a fun family day dressed up as culture, if 100,000 nationalists gathered to celebrate an ancient victory over their neighbours would it be acceptable?, answer is we don't do shit like that, a football final yes, if enough tickets were available, the average easter parade has a couple of hundred attending. A heck of a lot of decent people are getting on with their lives but they are mostly on one side.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on January 24, 2016, 10:56:34 PM
Could you imagine the outrage if Catholics celebrated the fictitious murder of Protestants in county Armagh in the 18th century?

The rise of the Linen thread and other industrial innovations meant that in the early 18th century many Catholic families grew rich. The Penal Laws continued to surpress them, and many Protestants were aggrieved at their wealth. So they made up stories about Catholics being able to afford weapons and storing them in their homes. That gave the Peep O'Day boys enough incentive to search Catholic houses, and then burn them out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 24, 2016, 11:12:35 PM
Yes,and the Dublin Government you are all so anxious to be ruled by,funds an interpretive centre at the site of the Battle of the Boyne,and would indulge unionists in their every whim if there was a United Ireland tomorrow.

All this will pale into insignificance if and when the obsolete political forces of nationalism and unionism are forced into minor roles behind a predominant Northern Irish culture and political outlook that looks to the future not the past
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 11:35:13 PM
Interested to find out how you are going back any of this up.

Why do I need to back up a simple statement of history?

Quote
And what are you going to do with them unionist votes? That bit is missing from your post

I'm not proposing to stop anyone voting. I am suggesting they reflect on the moral implications of the parties they are voting for.

Quote from: smelmoth
There is an ideology of a union. Its a legitimate ideology

Proposing that Ireland be united with some place is a legitimate philosophy, carving off part of the country in a sectarian statelet making Irish people second class citizens is not, and that is true whether you are James Craig or Tony Fearon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on January 24, 2016, 11:42:37 PM
Yes,and the Dublin Government you are all so anxious to be ruled by,funds an interpretive centre at the site of the Battle of the Boyne,and would indulge unionists in their every whim if there was a United Ireland tomorrow.

All this will pale into insignificance if and when the obsolete political forces of nationalism and unionism are forced into minor roles behind a predominant Northern Irish culture and political outlook that looks to the future not the past

I could possibly embrace such a culture Tony if days like the 13th become obselete. I am attending a pub quiz in youre adopted village Fri night for a local charity. Call down if you are free. Rices hotel. You and orior could set up an ard macha we only won once team. :)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 12:00:37 AM
Days like 12th and 13th of July don't bother me,as I do what I want to.I certainly don't sit brooding or feeling oppressed because people choose to march with coloured sashes.

By the way in Portadown Town Centre,when I was a youngster,a West Belfast Catholic owned a pub,and always said that the 12th and 13th of July were his best business days.He always made sure the brethren went to the Field or Scarva with thirst fully quenched,and awaited their return later that evening with glee,as he made another killing,in the financial sense
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on January 25, 2016, 12:15:19 AM
I don't sit brooding either but if there is to be a new NI acceptable to all as you are proposing the old culture of dominance is not possible. Or is it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 12:21:53 AM
The only dominant people in North today,as in South,and everywhere else,are the rich and powerful,and this group includes Catholic and Protestant.Both sides have freedom to March,if that's what tickles their fancy,and there is a full range of legislation to protect everyone from discrimination.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 25, 2016, 07:49:21 AM
The only dominant people in North today,as in South,and everywhere else,are the rich and powerful,and this group includes Catholic and Protestant.Both sides have freedom to March,if that's what tickles their fancy,and there is a full range of legislation to protect everyone from discrimination.

You are from Portadown and you spout this crap, you really are an attention seeking parasite.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 25, 2016, 08:41:51 AM
I don't recall anywhere where I've denied any Republican wrong doing so spare me the sanctimonious crap. There is scum on both sides. Atrocities carried out by both.

What I am challenging is this lazy notion that both sides are as bad as each other in terms of sectarianism when they are clearly not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: The Gs Man on January 25, 2016, 09:11:27 AM
You can close this thread now lads.  Sure after the rioting in Lurgan last night and the hoax bombs on the railway lines we're now waking up to a United Ireland.

No, wait.  It just means my kids can't walk to school this morning and pensioners can't get out of their homes for a while.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 25, 2016, 12:12:48 PM
All down to perceptions,both sides perceive their armies weren't terrorists just defenders of the people.

N Ireland does exist and will continue to exist for two simple reasons. 1.The majority of its people,now arguably on both sides,do not want constitutional change. 2.The freestate neither wants nor can afford N Ireland.

Once you accept these blindingly obvious and irrefutable facts,you by logic,accept that the politics of unionism and nationalism are obsolete and that new parties and a new political focus is needed,on attainable goals like fostering and prioritising  a common Northern Irish ethos and identity.
Looking forward to you dressed up in your new NI soccer kit and your Rangers scarf. Tony once again you are arguing for the sake of it, ignoring facts and creating your own little fantasy. I think not even you believe what you are saying.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 06:17:34 PM
Embracing a Northern Irish culture does not mean becoming an ultra loyalist or nationalist.

By the way I see Enda was over licking Cameron's asshole today,begging him not to leave the EU.If only uniting Ireland caused a tenth as much passion in the South as the prospect of a Brexit does. ???
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 25, 2016, 06:38:23 PM
Please give examples of "Northern Irish culture" that all or most of the residents could indulge in.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 07:02:11 PM
A lot of it exists. Community  groups ,historical societies,soccer and rugby,drama groups etc.This can be built on,St Patrick's Day could be more inclusive,remove the 12th of July as a public holiday,most importantly create and bolster Northern Irish politics and ethos which is agnostic as far as both unionism and nationalism is concerned.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 07:24:22 PM
There is a growing cross community interest and participation in things like Irish Dancing as well.Once you get rid or diminish the odious activities that divides people,anything is possible.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2016, 07:30:33 PM
There is a growing cross community interest and participation in things like Irish Dancing as well.Once you get rid or diminish the odious activities that divides people,anything is possible.

Great craic althogher, but none of this is justification for partition, as people in Monaghan do these things as well.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
Whether partition is justified or not,it is a fact and is not going to change.So what do you do? Remember the South of Ireland doesn't want nor can it afford you? Do you continue with the status quo,agitating in a segregated society for something that simply isn't going to happen,or put your energy into breaking down barriers and living in a normal society?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2016, 07:47:04 PM
Whether partition is justified or not,it is a fact and is not going to change.So what do you do? Remember the South of Ireland doesn't want nor can it afford you? Do you continue with the status quo,agitating in a segregated society for something that simply isn't going to happen,or put your energy into breaking down barriers and living in a normal society?

You present an either/or, I prefer both. I'm all for a normal society and I don't see why a normal society should be unaffordable, otherwise it wouldn't be normal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 07:49:13 PM
Do you seriously think there is a snowball's chance in hell of a Unitec Ireland?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: From the Bunker on January 25, 2016, 08:03:48 PM
Do you seriously think there is a snowball's chance in hell of a Unitec Ireland?

No. Sure things are grand as they are. We have an All Ireland Rugby team. We have a 32(+) county championship in Gaelic football. We have a token AI Championship in Hurling. We have two teams in Soccer in the Euros. We have good cross border relations. We have a Plethora of public representatives.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 25, 2016, 08:30:01 PM
How many more years of being an economic basket case and social blackhole does NI have to endure before people realise something has to change?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 25, 2016, 08:56:58 PM
A lot of it exists. Community  groups ,historical societies,soccer and rugby,drama groups etc.
Sure most places in the World have them sort of things ;)
I see a DUPe MLA Tom Buchanan is going to take part in a SF organised debate on a UI in Omagh I think.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 09:04:42 PM
You are confusing idealism with reality.A United Ireland is further away than ever,and it's due to the contemptible standard of so called nationalist parties North and South,who have failed miserably to facilitate Britain's wish to withdraw.

The panic in the South about a potential Brexit shows that Irish independence from Britain is a sham.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on January 25, 2016, 09:05:55 PM
Remove the 12th of july as a public holiday... Yes that would make a lot of people feel like they are in a shared environment...

Some community groups should be abolished never mind embraced.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2016, 09:36:08 PM
You are confusing idealism with reality.A United Ireland is further away than ever,and it's due to the contemptible standard of so called nationalist parties North and South,who have failed miserably to facilitate Britain's wish to withdraw.

We can certainly agree on the uselessness of politicians. However, this is not quite the optimum time for a push on this matter and when the time is better perhaps some competent politicians will step forward.


Remove the 12th of july as a public holiday... Yes that would make a lot of people feel like they are in a shared environment...

What other country in Europe has a public holiday to allow one side of a civil war march about and try and piss off the other side?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 09:38:40 PM
Twelfth of July is already ignored in Nationalist towns,it should not be a Public Holiday.Having said that if people want to march with coloured sashes, I don't really care.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on January 25, 2016, 10:03:38 PM
You are confusing idealism with reality.A United Ireland is further away than ever,and it's due to the contemptible standard of so called nationalist parties North and South,who have failed miserably to facilitate Britain's wish to withdraw.

We can certainly agree on the uselessness of politicians. However, this is not quite the optimum time for a push on this matter and when the time is better perhaps some competent politicians will step forward.


Remove the 12th of july as a public holiday... Yes that would make a lot of people feel like they are in a shared environment...

What other country in Europe has a public holiday to allow one side of a civil war march about and try and piss off the other side?

I didn't say i approved of it. It and all the shit associated with it need abolished as it is the major source of contention here these days however that is highly unlikely.

Not quite the same but similar could be said about loyalists and st patricks day tony.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2016, 10:07:07 PM
Not quite the same but similar could be said about loyalists and st patricks day tony.

Another spurious equivalence. Loyalists generally purport to be Christians, so St Patrick's day is not in the same category, especially as he came from Britain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 25, 2016, 10:20:25 PM
Look,if there was never another parade,from any group,here I wouldn't complain.I have never felt the need to parade to assert my religious,cultural,hetrosexual leanings,and I guess most people here feel the same.

By the way doesn't the Orange Order claim that the Battle of the Boyne was a victory for civil and religious liberty for all?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 26, 2016, 09:14:11 AM
Look,if there was never another parade,from any group,here I wouldn't complain.I have never felt the need to parade to assert my religious,cultural,hetrosexual leanings,and I guess most people here feel the same.

By the way doesn't the Orange Order claim that the Battle of the Boyne was a victory for civil and religious liberty for all?


Ah that's why they get funding to build bonfires, burn effigies of the Pope, burn tricolours, taunt nationalists whilst marching, burn tyres etc. all openly and without fear of arrest
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 26, 2016, 10:45:13 AM
There is a growing cross community interest and participation in things like Irish Dancing as well.Once you get rid or diminish the odious activities that divides people,anything is possible.
Culturally Irish not exclusively Northern Irish.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 26, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 11:59:52 AM
The thing is, in any UI SF could well become obsolete...

Too much apathy among nationalist background voters for either SDLP or SF to make any serious assault on a UI, even if they had any serious intentions of doing so in the very near future. People are happy with their lot, take the whole "I don't vote cos the politicians are all useless" approach but then wonder why nothing gets down and why we are getting raped by the Eton old boys.

I think SF have run a few token events discussing unification but an all party approach would be a good idea to at least get some sort of consensus for nationalists
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 03:37:06 PM
Apples biggest barrier to a UI is the Dublin Govt who dont want it under any circumstances.I am unconvinced about the benefits of Unity.The North has largely been reformed.Were not the border counties largely ignored by successive Dublin governments.A similar fate awaits us in the North.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: winghalfback on January 26, 2016, 04:06:20 PM
I think so very valid points have been made reading through the last few pages. I this it has already been pointed out but it is glaring all be it on a very small scale how split the nationalist opinion is. A lot on here want an Eire Nua but don't know how it will look others are happy with their lot. I feel some people are anti UI because SF are leading the charge towards it, all be it someone has to take up the mantle and lead it. I do believe an all party board will have to be set up to deliver the kind of Ireland we want. No one knows what the future holds,  no one knows what kind of Ireland we will have but we have to talk about it it has to be an open discussion between all sides and parties. I feel it is inevitable it will happen it's just a matter of when. I is going to be a massive change for everyone but to put a few points out there for consumption of thought.
Who said government had to be in Dublin?
Who said SF would be the leading charge com the time of an UI referendum?
Why would it not be possible for so called Unionist parties not to be in power?
Why would it be a case that there would be less money available?
Would the UK leaving Europe speed up or slow the process towards the road to Eire Nua?


I just personally think everyone needs to be looking at this with a broader mind frame.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 06:15:42 PM
Nationalist opinion is split simply due to the fact that a substantial majority North and South (does Irish Nationalism even exist in any significant way in the 26 counties?), does not actually want a United Ireland.In the North,one of the main nationalist parties Westminster members swear oaths of allegiance to the Queen.That is incompatible with a desire for a United Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 26, 2016, 06:41:29 PM
.In the North,one of the main nationalist parties Westminster members swear oaths of allegiance to the Queen.That is incompatible with a desire for a United Ireland.
Maybe they want a United Ireland under the British Crown :o
I'd say the main view in the 26 is that we'll wait till a majority in the North wants a U I and sure then we'll see how we can accomodate the whingy whiny bickering hoors.
Meanwhile we'll get on with the economic recovery and wish the Nordies would try and get an economy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 06:49:56 PM
And that is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 26, 2016, 06:58:24 PM
And that is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes
THe North not getting an economy??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 06:59:38 PM
Yes and your willingness to accommodate us!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
What an arrogant post.  With this sort of attitude you will be a long time persuading Unionists that their best interests lie in a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: andoireabu on January 26, 2016, 09:29:13 PM
@ michaelg

If there was to be a New Ireland, what would have to be in it before you would consider voting yes? (I'm assuming you wouldn't at present so forgive me if I am wrong).  Interesting to get a different perspective on it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 26, 2016, 09:34:50 PM
Nationalist opinion is split simply due to the fact that a substantial majority North and South (does Irish Nationalism even exist in any significant way in the 26 counties?), does not actually want a United Ireland.

A substantial majority in the south have indicated that they want a United Ireland, your efforts would be better devoted to securing a similar majority in the 6 counties.

Quote
one of the main nationalist parties Westminster members swear oaths of allegiance to the Queen.That is incompatible with a desire for a United Ireland.

How so?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 09:50:09 PM
When did a "substantial majority" in the South express they're in favour of a United Ireland? Evidence? Is it the policy of any party in the Dáil,apart from Sinn Fein? Why is Northern Ireland part if the Dublin Government's "Foreign Affairs" office?

You cannot swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and similarly aspire to end her Government's rule "throughout the UK?"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:01:39 PM
@ michaelg

If there was to be a New Ireland, what would have to be in it before you would consider voting yes? (I'm assuming you wouldn't at present so forgive me if I am wrong).  Interesting to get a different perspective on it.
To be honest, if I had to decide between remaining within the UK or moving into a UI, I would opt for the former.  As such, it's difficult to say what would have to be in a 'New Ireland, for me to consider voting yes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 26, 2016, 10:02:26 PM
I presume all the Labour MPs in Westminster want to end " her Government's rule throughout the UK" ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 10:22:34 PM
By consent.But you cannot be an Irish nationalist party and take an oath of allegiance to the Queen
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 10:30:52 PM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
What an arrogant post.  With this sort of attitude you will be a long time persuading Unionists that their best interests lie in a UI.
It's true though. What other former colonies do the natives still call themselves British? Gibraltar? Falklands?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:39:03 PM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
What an arrogant post.  With this sort of attitude you will be a long time persuading Unionists that their best interests lie in a UI.
It's true though. What other former colonies do the natives still call themselves British? Gibraltar? Falklands?
No it isn't.  They do not 'claim' to be British.  They live in the UK and hold British passports.  What gives you the right to tell them how they should feel / identify themselves?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 26, 2016, 10:53:55 PM
It's true though. What other former colonies do the natives still call themselves British? Gibraltar? Falklands?

There are probably a few stragglers in Rhodesia and the Gilbert Islands. The sun never sets, you know.

No it isn't.  They do not 'claim' to be British.  They live in the UK and hold British passports.  What gives you the right to tell them how they should feel / identify themselves?

Probably because it was our country that they colonised.
But then not being allowed comment what unassimilated migrants get up to in your country is all the rage nowadays.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 11:22:27 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/easter-rising-was-success-for-ulster-34394912.html

An alternative view of how 1916 should be celebrated. ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 27, 2016, 12:34:21 AM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
What an arrogant post.  With this sort of attitude you will be a long time persuading Unionists that their best interests lie in a UI.
It's true though. What other former colonies do the natives still call themselves British? Gibraltar? Falklands?
No it isn't.  They do not 'claim' to be British.  They live in the UK and hold British passports.  What gives you the right to tell them how they should feel / identify themselves?
It is. I'm not telling anyone to identify as anything, I support anyone's right to identify as British. I'm just pointing out that there are seemingly  few other parts of the empire where the natives of former colonies aspire to British nationalism the way people here do.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 07:37:02 AM
It's true though. What other former colonies do the natives still call themselves British? Gibraltar? Falklands?

There are probably a few stragglers in Rhodesia and the Gilbert Islands. The sun never sets, you know.

No it isn't.  They do not 'claim' to be British.  They live in the UK and hold British passports.  What gives you the right to tell them how they should feel / identify themselves?

Probably because it was our country that they colonised.
But then not being allowed comment what unassimilated migrants get up to in your country is all the rage nowadays.
As articulate as ever.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on January 27, 2016, 09:18:45 AM
@ michaelg

If there was to be a New Ireland, what would have to be in it before you would consider voting yes? (I'm assuming you wouldn't at present so forgive me if I am wrong).  Interesting to get a different perspective on it.
To be honest, if I had to decide between remaining within the UK or moving into a UI, I would opt for the former.  As such, it's difficult to say what would have to be in a 'New Ireland, for me to consider voting yes.

Probably the most informative post on the whole thread.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 27, 2016, 09:52:09 AM
@ michaelg

If there was to be a New Ireland, what would have to be in it before you would consider voting yes? (I'm assuming you wouldn't at present so forgive me if I am wrong).  Interesting to get a different perspective on it.
To be honest, if I had to decide between remaining within the UK or moving into a UI, I would opt for the former.  As such, it's difficult to say what would have to be in a 'New Ireland, for me to consider voting yes.

Probably the most informative post on the whole thread.

But that is the point. There needs to be a lot of hard work done in the meantime to flesh out things, work that has hardly started.
There is a time for events, and progress on this matter isn't really possible when the current news is about the Shankill Bombings and Gerry Adams is still running the show. It is too easy for people to discredit a UI on account of Adams etc, even though it doesn't belong to him and he has been largely an obstacle to it.

The cententary of the founding of NI will see it the unionist "community" as a minority, it will see NI 10% less well off than the 26 counties having been 10% better off when founded, and various events like the Scottish independence debate, Brexit etc, Tory spending cuts, will have exposed the limitations of London rule. Against this background discussion can begin.

Unfortunately, I cannot quite see where the next generation of leadership might come from.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 27, 2016, 03:34:34 PM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
What an arrogant post.  With this sort of attitude you will be a long time persuading Unionists that their best interests lie in a UI.
Nothing arrogant about it, what part of the protesting marching culture is actually british? Even the Ulster Scots movement is made up mostly of a Gaelic Culture which was brought to the Scottish Highlands by the Irish.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 27, 2016, 03:38:07 PM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
What an arrogant post.  With this sort of attitude you will be a long time persuading Unionists that their best interests lie in a UI.
It's true though. What other former colonies do the natives still call themselves British? Gibraltar? Falklands?
No it isn't.  They do not 'claim' to be British.  They live in the UK and hold British passports.  What gives you the right to tell them how they should feel / identify themselves?
I was referring to the culture not the person, they may be or feel that the are ethnically British as is there right but culturally?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 06:36:34 PM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
What an arrogant post.  With this sort of attitude you will be a long time persuading Unionists that their best interests lie in a UI.
It's true though. What other former colonies do the natives still call themselves British? Gibraltar? Falklands?
No it isn't.  They do not 'claim' to be British.  They live in the UK and hold British passports.  What gives you the right to tell them how they should feel / identify themselves?
I was referring to the culture not the person, they may be or feel that the are ethnically British as is there right but culturally?
Culture is not soley to do with Orangeism and marching bands.  Like it or not, many Unionists feel a close affinity with the rest of UK and consider themselves to be British.  You teliing them that they are not / are wrong, isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.  Nor is it going to persuade them that their future lies in a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 27, 2016, 06:48:17 PM
Culture is not soley to do with Orangeism and marching bands.  Like it or not, many Unionists feel a close affinity with the rest of UK and consider themselves to be British.  You teliing them that they are not / are wrong, isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.  Nor is it going to persuade them that their future lies in a UI.

People feeling an affinity with another country is up to themselves. It only becomes objectionable when it finds political expression in having that country rule part of this one  and colonising people who have the normal condition of identifying only with their own country.

As as for telling people things, are Unionists some kind of teenager who when you tell them smoking is stupid still smoke. Is there no moral mature people among them at all?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 07:14:20 PM
Culture is not soley to do with Orangeism and marching bands.  Like it or not, many Unionists feel a close affinity with the rest of UK and consider themselves to be British.  You teliing them that they are not / are wrong, isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.  Nor is it going to persuade them that their future lies in a UI.

People feeling an affinity with another country is up to themselves. It only becomes objectionable when it finds political expression in having that country rule part of this one  and colonising people who have the normal condition of identifying only with their own country.

As as for telling people things, are Unionists some kind of teenager who when you tell them smoking is stupid still smoke. Is there no moral mature people among them at all?
Unfortunately although you find it objectionable, it is the reality of the situation.  As you also know, under the GFA, the constitutional position of NI will only change when a majority of people on both sides of the border vote in favour of unification.  You wittering on about colonisation etc isn't going to get anybody anywhere.

As for your second comment, it is not even worthy of a response.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 27, 2016, 07:23:06 PM
Unfortunately although you find it objectionable, it is the reality of the situation.  As you also know, under the GFA the constitutional position of NI will only change when a majority of people on both sides of the border vote in favour of unification. 

Ah the usual, we won the battle of the Boyne, what we have we hold etc.

Quote
You wittering on about colonisation etc isn't going to get anybody anywhere.

I notice you avoid any discussion on the matter, but merely engage in avoidance tactics. Not an inch, eh?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Maguire01 on January 27, 2016, 07:27:06 PM
You cannot swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and similarly aspire to end her Government's rule "throughout the UK?"
A mere technicality, much like legislation from Stormont having to go through royal assent.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: andoireabu on January 27, 2016, 09:21:51 PM
@ michaelg

If there was to be a New Ireland, what would have to be in it before you would consider voting yes? (I'm assuming you wouldn't at present so forgive me if I am wrong).  Interesting to get a different perspective on it.
To be honest, if I had to decide between remaining within the UK or moving into a UI, I would opt for the former.  As such, it's difficult to say what would have to be in a 'New Ireland, for me to consider voting yes.
So to look at it from another side. If the referendum was passed and this New Ireland was going to be, what kind of things would you be hoping for in it to make you feel as welcome as possible and not on the outside looking in?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 09:44:54 PM
Unfortunately although you find it objectionable, it is the reality of the situation.  As you also know, under the GFA the constitutional position of NI will only change when a majority of people on both sides of the border vote in favour of unification. 

Ah the usual, we won the battle of the Boyne, what we have we hold etc.

Quote
You wittering on about colonisation etc isn't going to get anybody anywhere.

I notice you avoid any discussion on the matter, but merely engage in avoidance tactics. Not an inch, eh?
In reference to your first point, what has the Battle of the Boyne etc have to do with anything?  I made reference to the GFA, agreed by the majority of people on this island, which lays out how the constitutional position may change in the future. 

With reference to your second point, there is clearly not much point in engaging in discussion with someone who trots out nonsense such as the teenager smoking analogy that you came up with earlier.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 09:49:57 PM
@ michaelg

If there was to be a New Ireland, what would have to be in it before you would consider voting yes? (I'm assuming you wouldn't at present so forgive me if I am wrong).  Interesting to get a different perspective on it.
To be honest, if I had to decide between remaining within the UK or moving into a UI, I would opt for the former.  As such, it's difficult to say what would have to be in a 'New Ireland, for me to consider voting yes.
So to look at it from another side. If the referendum was passed and this New Ireland was going to be, what kind of things would you be hoping for in it to make you feel as welcome as possible and not on the outside looking in?
A new flag and anthem to start with would help.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 27, 2016, 10:33:24 PM
I'd support a new flag and anthem. One that unionists could relate to
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on January 27, 2016, 10:39:09 PM
I'd support a new flag and anthem. One that unionists could relate to
I would want to sees new constitution, a new political structure, new constituency boundaries, new local government powers, a bill of rights and responsibilities, etc. Basically a whole new Country.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 28, 2016, 07:16:32 AM
I'd support a new flag and anthem. One that unionists could relate to
I would want to sees new constitution, a new political structure, new constituency boundaries, new local government powers, a bill of rights and responsibilities, etc. Basically a whole new Country.
I'd agree. I wouldn't necessarily want to "join" the ROI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyser soze on January 28, 2016, 10:02:20 AM
I think before any of these happens or are even discussed, NI needs to be made to get up off it's backward economic hole and made to stand on its own two feet. What passes for an economy here just doesn't cut it in the real world.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2016, 11:06:54 AM
I think before any of these happens or are even discussed, NI needs to be made to get up off it's backward economic hole and made to stand on its own two feet. What passes for an economy here just doesn't cut it in the real world.
+1.
As for what happens after the referendums(da?) take place.
Well as I've told ye so many times before - most likely there will be an All Ireland confederation with the present 6 and 26 Co areas being autonomous areas with slimmed down versions of Stormont and the Dàil administering certain defined internal matters.
People from the 6 will be able to avail of British citizenship ( as well as Irish) if Britain still exists of course.
We'll have a Confederation flag and anthem - probably a green flag with that red St Patrick's X on it and a nice bland anthem " Our Lovely Island" maybe .
P
Most likely we'll have some kind of mutual friendship Treaty with Britain or England and Scotland - hopefully with a non Aggression provision ::) .
One thing we won't have is a "32 County Socialist Republic" so the Sinners may as well drop that nonsense from their literature now.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 28, 2016, 11:17:42 AM
I think before any of these happens or are even discussed, NI needs to be made to get up off it's backward economic hole and made to stand on its own two feet. What passes for an economy here just doesn't cut it in the real world.
+1.
As for what happens after the referendums(da?) take place.
Well as I've told ye so many times before - most likely there will be an All Ireland confederation with the present 6 and 26 Co areas being autonomous areas with slimmed down versions of Stormont and the Dàil administering certain defined internal matters.
People from the 6 will be able to avail of British citizenship ( as well as Irish) if Britain still exists of course.
We'll have a Confederation flag and anthem - probably a green flag with that red St Patrick's X on it and a nice bland anthem " Our Lovely Island" maybe .
P
Most likely we'll have some kind of mutual friendship Treaty with Britain or England and Scotland - hopefully with a non Aggression provision ::) .
One thing we won't have is a "32 County Socialist Republic" so the Sinners may as well drop that nonsense from their literature now.
We won't  have a 32 county neoliberal republic either...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2016, 12:07:51 PM
Hopefully a caring Social democratic one which Scotland appears to be developing into.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on January 28, 2016, 01:18:45 PM
I think before any of these happens or are even discussed, NI needs to be made to get up off it's backward economic hole and made to stand on its own two feet. What passes for an economy here just doesn't cut it in the real world.
+1.
As for what happens after the referendums(da?) take place.
Well as I've told ye so many times before - most likely there will be an All Ireland confederation with the present 6 and 26 Co areas being autonomous areas with slimmed down versions of Stormont and the Dàil administering certain defined internal matters.
People from the 6 will be able to avail of British citizenship ( as well as Irish) if Britain still exists of course.
We'll have a Confederation flag and anthem - probably a green flag with that red St Patrick's X on it and a nice bland anthem " Our Lovely Island" maybe .
P
Most likely we'll have some kind of mutual friendship Treaty with Britain or England and Scotland - hopefully with a non Aggression provision ::) .
One thing we won't have is a "32 County Socialist Republic" so the Sinners may as well drop that nonsense from their literature now.
Why do we need to maintain those gerrymandered constituencies?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2016, 02:49:03 PM
Because they will have been separated for 115/120 years by then with all sorts of different local laws, education systems, roadsigns, speed limits, currencies, planning laws, registration plates etc etc.
Also the need to keep the 6 Co British calm and to allow for dual citizenship there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on January 28, 2016, 04:33:34 PM
Rip it up & start again is the approach needed. A proper fresh start unification would be more painful for a lot of ROI citizens than Unionists imo. Chances of it happening are slim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on January 28, 2016, 10:08:22 PM
Because they will have been separated for 115/120 years by then with all sorts of different local laws, education systems, roadsigns, speed limits, currencies, planning laws, registration plates etc etc.
Also the need to keep the 6 Co British calm and to allow for dual citizenship there.
Going that way is essentially a step the United Ireland that Unionists fear.
It needs to be a new Country where everyone has a chance to buy in to the formation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 28, 2016, 10:19:54 PM
Because they will have been separated for 115/120 years by then with all sorts of different local laws, education systems, roadsigns, speed limits, currencies, planning laws, registration plates etc etc.
Also the need to keep the 6 Co British calm and to allow for dual citizenship there.
Going that way is essentially a step the United Ireland that Unionists fear.
It needs to be a new Country where everyone has a chance to buy in to the formation.

There is truth in both of these statements. A new country is needed, it is an excellent chance for a reboot of things that many people need changed anyway, but obviously some might want a measure of local devolution in the wee 6.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2016, 11:27:17 PM
It will be evolutionary so very little will be "ripped up".
" Ripping up" usually ends in tears - France 1790s, Germany 1930s, PolPot's Cambodia, etc etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on January 29, 2016, 04:36:56 AM
Why do we need to maintain those gerrymandered constituencies?

Smooths out the transition. Doesn't rock the boat so much.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 29, 2016, 10:55:00 AM
Reading through the posts here one thing is abundantly clear. Nationalists can't even agree on a discussion forum whether a UI is feasible, desirable or likely to come about. It is also quite clear that despite Tony's wish that it could be different there are two defined narratives, identities and cultures in the North one inherently Irish, the other claiming to be British but which in actual fact is regional and confined almost exclusively to the six counties. The fear  in loyalist communities at present is not about the end of the union but the reality that they are now a minority albeit the biggest minority currently in NI but the days of a catholic majority is a lot closer than a UI and with it will come the clamour for more equality fewer flegs and the spread of Irishness. The threat to the union lies there in as loyalism fades and common cause with the ROI leads to closer cooperation then unity is inevitable. How long it will take depends on the approach of the SDLP and SF in leadership of their respective supporters. Unfortunately from a nationalist perspective the SDLP seem quite happy with the status quo and SF have not really shown any vision of how this united country might shape up. There is no consensus with in nationalism and SF can't quite drop the socialist republic which just won't wash with the voters...outside of some working class ghettos or should we say benefit's class ghettos no one actually wants it. It is time for a national conference or discussion to forge a vision that all so called nationalist parties north and south can subscribe to. But don't hold your breath.
What an arrogant post.  With this sort of attitude you will be a long time persuading Unionists that their best interests lie in a UI.
It's true though. What other former colonies do the natives still call themselves British? Gibraltar? Falklands?
No it isn't.  They do not 'claim' to be British.  They live in the UK and hold British passports.  What gives you the right to tell them how they should feel / identify themselves?
I was referring to the culture not the person, they may be or feel that the are ethnically British as is there right but culturally?
Culture is not soley to do with Orangeism and marching bands.  Like it or not, many Unionists feel a close affinity with the rest of UK and consider themselves to be British.  You teliing them that they are not / are wrong, isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.  Nor is it going to persuade them that their future lies in a UI.
Firstly I do not wish to deny anyone the right to feel or be British. The point I was making is that when the PUL refer to their culture or attacks on their British Way of life it invariably means parading or marching or bands. This is not British culture.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Feckitt on January 30, 2016, 02:31:24 PM
Are Fianna Fail still talking about standing in elections in the North in 2019.  If they were serious about this, you would think they would have tried to recruit or convert a councillor or two, or at least even have a spokesperson in the North.

Apart from SF, People before Profit are as far as I'm aware the only party who organise on an All-Ireland basis.  The Green party do not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 30, 2016, 02:39:52 PM
Are Fianna Fail still talking about standing in elections in the North in 2019.  If they were serious about this, you would think they would have tried to recruit or convert a councillor or two, or at least even have a spokesperson in the North.

Apart from SF, People before Profit are as far as I'm aware the only party who organise on an All-Ireland basis.  The Green party do not.

FF have a branch in Cross', is that in Northern Ireland? They have said they would run in 2019, I think their collapse in the 26 counties took the steam out of earlier plans.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Feckitt on January 30, 2016, 03:07:48 PM
Yeah but what have these branches been doing for the past 5 years?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 31, 2016, 08:59:50 AM
On last Thursday evening's The View,on BBC NI, a FF TD was arguing with Jim Allister,TUV leader about Enda Kenny's right,or not,to involve himself in the Brexit debate.The FF TD (his name escapes me ) was coming out with,what is now standard Dublin Political speak, such as "We are the only EU country to share a land border with the UK" etc.

I now find it impossible to discern any difference between the views of Unionist political parties and those in the South (apart from SF obviously), in that they all regard NI and ROI as two distinct and separate countries,with political unity not on either's radar.

What therefore is the point of flogging the dead horse of Irish Unity?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 31, 2016, 10:25:36 AM
To keep you posting here maybe?!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on February 01, 2016, 11:39:27 AM
Why do we need to maintain those gerrymandered constituencies?

Smooths out the transition. Doesn't rock the boat so much.
Whilst I can see that side of the argument to my mind it is too much like saying to Unionists come and join us then we can create a new Country. Any sort of Federation Autonomous status should only be for a pre-determined time period (5-10 years) until the newly delineated regions could be put in place.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 26, 2016, 11:57:11 AM
Once again the contempt for Northern Nationalists evident in Dublin.Enda rules out a border poll, (the one sure way of avoiding a border between North and South), and scurrying to assure the British are supported in the exit negotiations (thus stupidly alienating the freestate's European partners),and not an acknowledgement far less concern for the Northern majority who voted remain.

Why do people in the North pursue Irish Unity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 26, 2016, 12:06:33 PM
Because in an ideal world, it sounds great. But we don't live in an ideal world.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 26, 2016, 12:07:02 PM
One of the ministers said Irish Unity would be good subject to the consent of the people of Northern Iron and he offered Rockall to Mr Fearon
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: The Down Way on June 26, 2016, 12:47:26 PM
Why do people in the North pursue Irish Unity.

Who is actually pursuing Irish unity in the north? The stoops never did, SF have accepted the status quo. The union is only being threatened by nationalism, English nationalism.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 26, 2016, 12:49:07 PM
I wouldn't let in Derry Armagh or Down until they are able to win an Ulster championship .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: The Down Way on June 26, 2016, 12:52:06 PM
I wouldn't let in Derry Armagh or Down until they are able to win an Ulster championship .

Neither would I.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 26, 2016, 12:57:55 PM
The smart thing to do now is to take advantage of the crisis.

1) Hide Adams as quickly as possible.
2) The Dublin Government needs to very publicly put an arm around the 6 counties and be seen to be a real force in representing their interests - in complete contrast to what is happening now in Stormont and London.
3) Offer potential solutions to those likely to be most worried about a Brexit, e.g. farmers, Civil Service etc, regardless of political leanings.
4) Avoid talk of a UI for the time being.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 26, 2016, 03:08:35 PM
Option 4) Has been happening for the last century and will continue for the next one
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 26, 2016, 04:28:30 PM
Why do people in the North pursue Irish Unity.

Who is actually pursuing Irish unity in the north? The stoops never did, SF have accepted the status quo. The union is only being threatened by nationalism, English nationalism.

And the DUP
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 26, 2016, 05:20:07 PM
The smart thing to do now is to take advantage of the crisis.

1) Hide Adams as quickly as possible.
2) The Dublin Government needs to very publicly put an arm around the 6 counties and be seen to be a real force in representing their interests - in complete contrast to what is happening now in Stormont and London.
3) Offer potential solutions to those likely to be most worried about a Brexit, e.g. farmers, Civil Service etc, regardless of political leanings.
4) Avoid talk of a UI for the time being.
5) support NI in European fora

Brexit is nihilistic

English nationalism is the driver.The relationship between London and the English working classes can be brutal eg the miners strike, the Hillsborough disaster and the lies that followed it.
Austerity and the industrial collapse that was Thatcher's choice were savage especially in the North of England. It is a mess with very deep roots.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 26, 2016, 06:44:50 PM
Recent days have also exposed the myth of Irish independence from England.It was therefore cringeworthy to see Irish so called leaders celebrate the 1916 leaders earlier this year,as they have in all other respects sullied their memory and betrayed their legacy.

Now the emphasis seems at all costs not to alienate nor offend their UK allies,at the expense of probably annoying Ireland's  European partners
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Oghams Law on June 26, 2016, 06:54:56 PM
Good to see this issue being discussed at least. It would 't be if all the remainers on here had got their way..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 26, 2016, 07:17:10 PM
Recent days have also exposed the myth of Irish independence from England.It was therefore cringeworthy to see Irish so called leaders celebrate the 1916 leaders earlier this year,as they have in all other respects sullied their memory and betrayed their legacy.

Now the emphasis seems at all costs not to alienate nor offend their UK allies,at the expense of probably annoying Ireland's  European partners

Tony, you are a complete WUM. I am independent of my neighbour, but if his house burns down it may still affect me.
Brexit is bollix because the UK will always have more to do with European countries than Peru or whatever (except Paddington Bear).
Ireland cannot quite ignore its neighbours, even if they are bollixes.

And taking the example of the GAA, a lot of people in Britain would go for a replay if it could be shown that someone had used 7 subs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 26, 2016, 07:43:32 PM
I wouldn't let in Derry Armagh or Down until they are able to win an Ulster championship .

Yet Fermanagh get in?!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 26, 2016, 08:15:39 PM
I wouldn't let in Derry Armagh or Down until they are able to win an Ulster championship .

Yet Fermanagh get in?!
Pete mcgrath factor
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 27, 2016, 10:56:21 AM
Ignore Tony, he has been peddling this nonsense for some time. Yes the Shinners have asked for a poll, but only to up the ante. They know the conditions aren't met as does Charlie Flanagan hence his rejection. SF know as Mike Nesbitt has pointed out that the brevet vote has woken Northern nationalists (small n) up to the fact that the cosy position within the union might not be just so cosy, and they whilst accepting the union did so on the basis of their Irishness being protected and the border being invisible. The border will not be so invisible and what happens to the protection of the GFA now? How can Cross Border bodies continue to exist?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 27, 2016, 11:13:02 AM
Cross border bodies could become a mechanism for EU funds to get to the North ??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 11:14:10 AM
The smart thing to do now is to take advantage of the crisis.

1) Hide Adams as quickly as possible.
2) The Dublin Government needs to very publicly put an arm around the 6 counties and be seen to be a real force in representing their interests - in complete contrast to what is happening now in Stormont and London.
3) Offer potential solutions to those likely to be most worried about a Brexit, e.g. farmers, Civil Service etc, regardless of political leanings.
4) Avoid talk of a UI for the time being.
1) is an obvious and enduring truth.
4) is helpful

How specifically could they do 2) & 3)?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 11:15:35 AM
Option 4) Has been happening for the last century and will continue for the next one
And would that be wrong?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:33:17 PM
The smart thing to do now is to take advantage of the crisis.

1) Hide Adams as quickly as possible.
2) The Dublin Government needs to very publicly put an arm around the 6 counties and be seen to be a real force in representing their interests - in complete contrast to what is happening now in Stormont and London.
3) Offer potential solutions to those likely to be most worried about a Brexit, e.g. farmers, Civil Service etc, regardless of political leanings.
4) Avoid talk of a UI for the time being.
1) is an obvious and enduring truth.
4) is helpful

How specifically could they do 2) & 3)?

The is a complete leadership vacuum in the UK now. As Faisil Islam said on Sky yesterday, the only one who seemed to have a plan for a Leave vote was Sturgeon. And boy has she succeeded in getting her agenda out. Even the Leave campaign has no plan for a Leave vote.

The EU has no plan either and the recriminations will last for a while, e.g. the Germans & Czechs are publicly blaming Juncker, before there is a coherent response from the EU. In fact the words 'coherent response' usually don't go well in a sentence with the letters 'EU'. So that will take time as well.

I think the Dáil should immediately agree to set up a powerful cross-party group, with the full public backing of the leaders of each party, to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>.

This group should be very public, very vocal about supporting every Nationalist, Unionist and Emigrant living in the 6 counties and be very diplomatic about how they portray themselves.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 12:40:34 PM
I think the Dáil should immediately agree to set up a powerful cross-party group, with the full public backing of the leaders of each party, to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>.

This group should be very public, very vocal about supporting every Nationalist, Unionist and Emigrant living in the 6 counties and be very diplomatic about how they portray themselves.

The solution is for the 6 counties to remain connected to the UK, but remain in the EU for practical purposes.
But the Dáil committee would work better if someone in the 6 counties would actually articulate a wish for this, ideally someone not nationalist. The problem is that the whole thing is up in the air and so it is hard to take aim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 12:42:10 PM
Once again the contempt for Northern Nationalists evident in Dublin.Enda rules out a border poll, (the one sure way of avoiding a border between North and South), and scurrying to assure the British are supported in the exit negotiations (thus stupidly alienating the freestate's European partners),and not an acknowledgement far less concern for the Northern majority who voted remain.

Why do people in the North pursue Irish Unity.

It's not really Irish unity. We will always be trying to screw each other.
It's a one Island Nation we need under any name. Many people fail to understand that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:44:14 PM
I think the Dáil should immediately agree to set up a powerful cross-party group, with the full public backing of the leaders of each party, to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>.

This group should be very public, very vocal about supporting every Nationalist, Unionist and Emigrant living in the 6 counties and be very diplomatic about how they portray themselves.

The solution is for the 6 counties to remain connected to the UK, but remain in the EU for practical purposes.
But the Dáil committee would work better if someone in the 6 counties would actually articulate a wish for this, ideally someone not nationalist. The problem is that the whole thing is up in the air and so it is hard to take aim.

This would be a great help, but the GFA and all of the Irish passport holders living there give a certain mandate to the Dáil. Like I said though, we would need it to be a diplomatic group. No loose cannons.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 12:50:46 PM
The smart thing to do now is to take advantage of the crisis.

1) Hide Adams as quickly as possible.
2) The Dublin Government needs to very publicly put an arm around the 6 counties and be seen to be a real force in representing their interests - in complete contrast to what is happening now in Stormont and London.
3) Offer potential solutions to those likely to be most worried about a Brexit, e.g. farmers, Civil Service etc, regardless of political leanings.
4) Avoid talk of a UI for the time being.
1) is an obvious and enduring truth.
4) is helpful

How specifically could they do 2) & 3)?

The is a complete leadership vacuum in the UK now. As Faisil Islam said on Sky yesterday, the only one who seemed to have a plan for a Leave vote was Sturgeon. And boy has she succeeded in getting her agenda out. Even the Leave campaign has no plan for a Leave vote.

The EU has no plan either and the recriminations will last for a while, e.g. the Germans & Czechs are publicly blaming Juncker, before there is a coherent response from the EU. In fact the words 'coherent response' usually don't go well in a sentence with the letters 'EU'. So that will take time as well.

I think the Dáil should immediately agree to set up a powerful cross-party group, with the full public backing of the leaders of each party, to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>.

This group should be very public, very vocal about supporting every Nationalist, Unionist and Emigrant living in the 6 counties and be very diplomatic about how they portray themselves.

So they shouldn't do anything but they should talk about doing something and the body doing the talking should be "powerful"?

And this talking that they would be doing in RoI and with people in Europe is going to help stabilise the situation in NI? NI unionists (the majority in NI) are going to welcome these disinterested, benevolent interventions? 


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 12:54:24 PM

The is a complete leadership vacuum in the UK now. As Faisil Islam said on Sky yesterday, the only one who seemed to have a plan for a Leave vote was Sturgeon. And boy has she succeeded in getting her agenda out. Even the Leave campaign has no plan for a Leave vote.

The EU has no plan either and the recriminations will last for a while, e.g. the Germans & Czechs are publicly blaming Juncker, before there is a coherent response from the EU. In fact the words 'coherent response' usually don't go well in a sentence with the letters 'EU'. So that will take time as well.

I think the Dáil should immediately agree to set up a powerful cross-party group, with the full public backing of the leaders of each party, to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>.

This group should be very public, very vocal about supporting every Nationalist, Unionist and Emigrant living in the 6 counties and be very diplomatic about how they portray themselves.

There'll be another leader in the UK soon, don't worry.

There will be no response this year or next year. They have no clue how to deal with this so they won't. It's just a referendum, no big deal.

The last thing anyone needs is a new Dail group. There is no such thing as a diplomatic group set up by politicians.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:55:03 PM
The smart thing to do now is to take advantage of the crisis.

1) Hide Adams as quickly as possible.
2) The Dublin Government needs to very publicly put an arm around the 6 counties and be seen to be a real force in representing their interests - in complete contrast to what is happening now in Stormont and London.
3) Offer potential solutions to those likely to be most worried about a Brexit, e.g. farmers, Civil Service etc, regardless of political leanings.
4) Avoid talk of a UI for the time being.
1) is an obvious and enduring truth.
4) is helpful

How specifically could they do 2) & 3)?

The is a complete leadership vacuum in the UK now. As Faisil Islam said on Sky yesterday, the only one who seemed to have a plan for a Leave vote was Sturgeon. And boy has she succeeded in getting her agenda out. Even the Leave campaign has no plan for a Leave vote.

The EU has no plan either and the recriminations will last for a while, e.g. the Germans & Czechs are publicly blaming Juncker, before there is a coherent response from the EU. In fact the words 'coherent response' usually don't go well in a sentence with the letters 'EU'. So that will take time as well.

I think the Dáil should immediately agree to set up a powerful cross-party group, with the full public backing of the leaders of each party, to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>.

This group should be very public, very vocal about supporting every Nationalist, Unionist and Emigrant living in the 6 counties and be very diplomatic about how they portray themselves.

So they shouldn't do anything but they should talk about doing something and the body doing the talking should be "powerful"?

And this talking that they would be doing in RoI and with people in Europe is going to help stabilise the situation in NI? NI unionists (the majority in NI) are going to welcome these disinterested, benevolent interventions?

Did you miss these non-talking points?

"...to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>. ..."

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:57:03 PM

The is a complete leadership vacuum in the UK now. As Faisil Islam said on Sky yesterday, the only one who seemed to have a plan for a Leave vote was Sturgeon. And boy has she succeeded in getting her agenda out. Even the Leave campaign has no plan for a Leave vote.

The EU has no plan either and the recriminations will last for a while, e.g. the Germans & Czechs are publicly blaming Juncker, before there is a coherent response from the EU. In fact the words 'coherent response' usually don't go well in a sentence with the letters 'EU'. So that will take time as well.

I think the Dáil should immediately agree to set up a powerful cross-party group, with the full public backing of the leaders of each party, to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>.

This group should be very public, very vocal about supporting every Nationalist, Unionist and Emigrant living in the 6 counties and be very diplomatic about how they portray themselves.

There'll be another leader in the UK soon, don't worry.

There will be no response this year or next year. They have no clue how to deal with this so they won't. It's just a referendum, no big deal.

The last thing anyone needs is a new Dail group. There is no such thing as a diplomatic group set up by politicians.

Ah right. The Tony Fearon Principle.

So...

1) tell the politicians to do nothing

and

2) blame politicians you don't like for doing nothing.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 12:58:20 PM
The smart thing to do now is to take advantage of the crisis.

1) Hide Adams as quickly as possible.
2) The Dublin Government needs to very publicly put an arm around the 6 counties and be seen to be a real force in representing their interests - in complete contrast to what is happening now in Stormont and London.
3) Offer potential solutions to those likely to be most worried about a Brexit, e.g. farmers, Civil Service etc, regardless of political leanings.
4) Avoid talk of a UI for the time being.
1) is an obvious and enduring truth.
4) is helpful

How specifically could they do 2) & 3)?

The is a complete leadership vacuum in the UK now. As Faisil Islam said on Sky yesterday, the only one who seemed to have a plan for a Leave vote was Sturgeon. And boy has she succeeded in getting her agenda out. Even the Leave campaign has no plan for a Leave vote.

The EU has no plan either and the recriminations will last for a while, e.g. the Germans & Czechs are publicly blaming Juncker, before there is a coherent response from the EU. In fact the words 'coherent response' usually don't go well in a sentence with the letters 'EU'. So that will take time as well.

I think the Dáil should immediately agree to set up a powerful cross-party group, with the full public backing of the leaders of each party, to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>.

This group should be very public, very vocal about supporting every Nationalist, Unionist and Emigrant living in the 6 counties and be very diplomatic about how they portray themselves.

So they shouldn't do anything but they should talk about doing something and the body doing the talking should be "powerful"?

And this talking that they would be doing in RoI and with people in Europe is going to help stabilise the situation in NI? NI unionists (the majority in NI) are going to welcome these disinterested, benevolent interventions?

Did you miss these non-talking points?

"...to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>. ..."

No mention of UK government (whatever that turns out to be) or Stormont executive so unless you are considering imposing things over the heads of these people then I guess you are still n the realm of talking rather than doing
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 12:58:35 PM

Did you miss these non-talking points?

"...to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>. ..."

What would be the point in being an EU citizen if you are politically outside the EU?
For example. is there any extra benefit to being an EU citizen than being a British citizen if you lived in Canada?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 01:00:05 PM

Did you miss these non-talking points?

"...to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>. ..."

What would be the point in being an EU citizen if you are politically outside the EU?
For example. is there any extra benefit to being an EU citizen than being a British citizen if you lived in Canada?

In canada no but travelling within europe, yes
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:01:40 PM


Ah right. The Tony Fearon Principle.

So...

1) tell the politicians to do nothing

and

2) blame politicians you don't like for doing nothing.

Not at all.

1. There is no lack of leadership in the UK. It has it's leaders and will have leaders in the future too.
We can pretend they don't but I'd rather not pretend.

2. The politicians will do what they do, that hasn't changed and won't change.
My point is we should not be demanding change and setting up groups when as yet nothing has happened and as is likely nothing will happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:04:12 PM

Did you miss these non-talking points?

"...to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>. ..."

What would be the point in being an EU citizen if you are politically outside the EU?
For example. is there any extra benefit to being an EU citizen than being a British citizen if you lived in Canada?

In canada no but travelling within europe, yes

Do you think it will change for British citizens? The EU would be as crazy as I sometimes say they are if they decide to downgrade the status of a traveling Brit. Every bit as Crazy as it would be for the Brits to downgrade the status of EU citizens within it's borders.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:08:03 PM


Ah right. The Tony Fearon Principle.

So...

1) tell the politicians to do nothing

and

2) blame politicians you don't like for doing nothing.

Not at all.

1. There is no lack of leadership in the UK. It has it's leaders and will have leaders in the future too.
We can pretend they don't but I'd rather not pretend.

2. The politicians will do what they do, that hasn't changed and won't change.
My point is we should not be demanding change and setting up groups when as yet nothing has happened and as is likely nothing will happen.

Are you serious?

I think you are stuck very deeply in the denial phase regarding what has happened. Britain is in a level of political chaos not seen for decades. The EU is only marginally better off.

There are those who know when there is an opportunity to make ground in such circumstances and there are those who will look at the headlights.

Sadly, looking at the composition of the Dáil, I think we will keep looking at the headlights and wait for something to happen.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 01:08:11 PM

Did you miss these non-talking points?

"...to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>. ..."

What would be the point in being an EU citizen if you are politically outside the EU?
For example. is there any extra benefit to being an EU citizen than being a British citizen if you lived in Canada?

In canada no but travelling within europe, yes

Do you think it will change for British citizens? The EU would be as crazy as I sometimes say they are if they decide to downgrade the status of a traveling Brit. Every bit as Crazy as it would be for the Brits to downgrade the status of EU citizens within it's borders.

Its a simple question of customs and passport control. Today as an eu citizen I walk through these processes in EU pairports. Anybody with a UK but not an Irish passport will not have this luxury going forward. They will still get in (unless they have some criminal record) but its just more hassle
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:10:15 PM


Its a simple question of customs and passport control. Today as an eu citizen I walk through these processes in EU passports. Anybody with a UK but not an Irish passport will not have this luxury going forward. They will still get in (unless they have some criminal record) but its just more hassle

That's easy to fix. Put up a sign that says, EU & British Passport Holders Queue Here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 01:14:04 PM


Its a simple question of customs and passport control. Today as an eu citizen I walk through these processes in EU passports. Anybody with a UK but not an Irish passport will not have this luxury going forward. They will still get in (unless they have some criminal record) but its just more hassle

That's easy to fix. Put up a sign that says, EU & British Passport Holders Queue Here.

Put that up for discussion in UK and EU?

If the brexiteers don't achieve some degree of border control there will be an outcry. If they do achieve it you think the EU will not reciprocate? You think they will leave this open for any other country that exists?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:16:22 PM

Did you miss these non-talking points?

"...to quickly identify the key issues for the 6 counties, to seek allies in the EU to support us for example, to keep the border open, to get clarification that the €3.5bn in EU funding goes ahead, that farm subsidies continue for the time being, that all citizens of the 6 counties will continue to be eligible for Irish Passports and thus have the choice of remaining EU citizens, <insert countless other issues I can't think of off the top of my head>. ..."

What would be the point in being an EU citizen if you are politically outside the EU?
For example. is there any extra benefit to being an EU citizen than being a British citizen if you lived in Canada?

You can work without a visa in 26 more countries.
You have access to social security in 26 more countries.
You are eligible for the same healthcare and education as the locals in 26 more countries.
You can legally own property with the rights of a local in 26 more countries.
You can carry an EU passport when traveling within 26 EU countries and avoid queueing with the immigrants so beloved by the British.
You are guaranteed right of entry to 26 more countries.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:16:53 PM

Are you serious?

I think you are stuck very deeply in the denial phase regarding what has happened. Britain is in a level of political chaos not seen for decades. The EU is only marginally better off.

There are those who know when there is an opportunity to make ground in such circumstances and there are those who will look at the headlights.

Sadly, looking at the composition of the Dáil, I think we will keep looking at the headlights and wait for something to happen.

I'm not in denial i'm just not buying the hyperbole.

Agreed. Never any different.

The Dail will do nothing as there is nothing they can do. Right now they are just trying to keep their heads low while somehow making themselves seem relevant.

If the UK breaks up we will just make another Union.

We'll all join the EU with Specail Status relationship between Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales.
The exact same thing under a new name.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 01:18:55 PM
Its a simple question of customs and passport control. Today as an eu citizen I walk through these processes in EU pairports. Anybody with a UK but not an Irish passport will not have this luxury going forward. They will still get in (unless they have some criminal record) but its just more hassle

Not much hassle, if merely travelling for visit purposes. But they could lose the right to work etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:19:53 PM

You can work without a visa in 26 more countries.
You have access to social security in 26 more countries.
You are eligible for the same healthcare and education as the locals in 26 more countries.
You can legally own property with the rights of a local in 26 more countries.
You can carry an EU passport when traveling within 26 EU countries and avoid queueing with the immigrants so beloved by the British.
You are guaranteed right of entry to 26 more countries.

1. The Swiss and Norwegians can do that, the Brits can too.
2. Brits have access to that.
3. Why would that change? Just agree to keep it.
4. See 3.
5. See 3
6. See all of above
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 01:22:16 PM

You can work without a visa in 26 more countries.
You have access to social security in 26 more countries.
You are eligible for the same healthcare and education as the locals in 26 more countries.
You can legally own property with the rights of a local in 26 more countries.
You can carry an EU passport when traveling within 26 EU countries and avoid queueing with the immigrants so beloved by the British.
You are guaranteed right of entry to 26 more countries.

1. The Swiss and Norwegians can do that, the Brits can too.
2. Brits have access to that.
3. Why would that change? Just agree to keep it.
4. See 3.
5. See 3
6. See all of above

The Norwegians have contributed to the EU and must allow free movement. The UK can do this, of course; but was it worth all the bother to end up with possibly a bigger contribution and still no immigration restrictions?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Are you serious?

I think you are stuck very deeply in the denial phase regarding what has happened. Britain is in a level of political chaos not seen for decades. The EU is only marginally better off.

There are those who know when there is an opportunity to make ground in such circumstances and there are those who will look at the headlights.

Sadly, looking at the composition of the Dáil, I think we will keep looking at the headlights and wait for something to happen.

I'm not in denial i'm just not buying the hyperbole.

Agreed. Never any different.

The Dail will do nothing as there is nothing they can do. Right now they are just trying to keep their heads low while somehow making themselves seem relevant.

If the UK breaks up we will just make another Union.

We'll all join the EU with Specail Status relationship between Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales.
The exact same thing under a new name.

Sturgeon has played it very well and the Dáil could easily take advantage of the chaos. But they probably won't.

As for this: "If the UK breaks up we will just make another Union."

You seem to think this will just happened and all will be grand.

The last European Country that I can think of that broke up was Yugoslavia. Blind nationalism and xenophobia were among of the causes of that too. For balance it should be mentioned that on the other hand the Czechs and Slovaks separated peaceably in 1993. Which would it be for Britain?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:24:57 PM

You can work without a visa in 26 more countries.
You have access to social security in 26 more countries.
You are eligible for the same healthcare and education as the locals in 26 more countries.
You can legally own property with the rights of a local in 26 more countries.
You can carry an EU passport when traveling within 26 EU countries and avoid queueing with the immigrants so beloved by the British.
You are guaranteed right of entry to 26 more countries.

1. The Swiss and Norwegians can do that, the Brits can too.
2. Brits have access to that.
3. Why would that change? Just agree to keep it.
4. See 3.
5. See 3
6. See all of above

Why would the EU agree to any of that? Especially given the chaos that Cameron has dragged every into?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:26:38 PM


The Norwegians have contributed to the EU and must allow free movement. The UK can do this, of course; but was it worth all the bother to end up with possibly a bigger contribution and still no immigration restrictions?

No it wasn't worth the bother.


Regarless of what the nappy heads think Britain need immigration. Now they can accept it from an educated EU workforce and find a way to sell it to the nappy heads or they can open their borders to former colonies and hope they get lucky.

Either way they won't stop the flow of people. The EU know this as do the Politicians and business leaders.
The EU will want the movement of people to Briain and vise versa. People are capital. If you halt the movement of people you halt the movement of capital.
The entire basis for having an EU>
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:27:12 PM

Why would the EU agree to any of that? Especially given the chaos that Cameron has dragged every into?

Because they want to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 27, 2016, 01:29:48 PM
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/b8e7ece0-3ba5-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#ixzz4CmYu3o00

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/b8e7ece0-3ba5-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html

When the Scots last voted in an independence referendum in 2014 the outcome was 55:45 to preserve the union. But during that campaign those on the unionist side — and I count myself among those who believe that the break-up of the UK would be a tragedy — could argue that Scotland had the best of both worlds: the historical political, cultural and economic ties with England, Wales and Northern Ireland alongside with the wider vision and opportunities afforded by the EU.

Now a choice is unavoidable. And the odds must be that the English nationalism that drove the Brexit vote will succeed where Scottish nationalism has so far failed in reading the rites over the UK.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:29:55 PM

Sturgeon has played it very well and the Dáil could easily take advantage of the chaos. But they probably won't.

As for this: "If the UK breaks up we will just make another Union."

You seem to think this will just happened and all will be grand.

The last European Country that I can think of that broke up was Yugoslavia. Blind nationalism and xenophobia were among of the causes of that too. For balance it should be mentioned that on the other hand the Czechs and Slovaks separated peaceably in 1993. Which would it be for Britain?

Peacefully if at all as it's not really a break up just renewing the vows.
English and Scottish Nationalism trumph British Nationalism.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:32:41 PM
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/b8e7ece0-3ba5-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#ixzz4CmYu3o00

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/b8e7ece0-3ba5-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html

When the Scots last voted in an independence referendum in 2014 the outcome was 55:45 to preserve the union. But during that campaign those on the unionist side — and I count myself among those who believe that the break-up of the UK would be a tragedy — could argue that Scotland had the best of both worlds: the historical political, cultural and economic ties with England, Wales and Northern Ireland alongside with the wider vision and opportunities afforded by the EU.

Now a choice is unavoidable. And the odds must be that the English nationalism that drove the Brexit vote will succeed where Scottish nationalism has so far failed in reading the rites over the UK.

It won't matter and it's the best way.
It took a war and years of carnage for Ireland to arrive at the spot where we have national identity and independence but know that we need to have a very close relationship with Britain.
If Scotland arrive at that peacfully and quicker than us it'll be good.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:37:58 PM

Why would the EU agree to any of that? Especially given the chaos that Cameron has dragged every into?

Because they want to.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36637232 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36637232)

The Bank of England now expects "the economy tips into recession over the next two quarters".
So expects tax rises and spending cuts. The pound is at a 30 year low. Expects job losses over the next 12 months. Both mean political parties have effectively no functioning leader. The is now the lamest duck Prime Minister I've ever seen. The only agreement in the EU is that they are angry.

You see the best case scenario as the solutions to all of the issues. Best of luck with that.


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:40:54 PM
He added: "If the UK government needs a reasonable amount of time to do that, we respect that," but said that the uncertainty could not continue forever.

Forever is a long time
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:48:28 PM
Many in Europe never wanted Britain joining the EU in the first place.

It has been a pretty obstructive and disruptive member over the years.

It has just caused absolute chaos in the EU.

And you think the EU will give Britain everything it wants on the way out?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 27, 2016, 01:54:13 PM
Until they trigger article 50 the status quo ante prevails

European political leadership since 2007 has been piss poor.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on June 27, 2016, 01:56:06 PM

Why would the EU agree to any of that? Especially given the chaos that Cameron has dragged every into?

Because they want to.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36637232 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36637232)

The Bank of England now expects "the economy tips into recession over the next two quarters".
So expects tax rises and spending cuts. The pound is at a 30 year low. Expects job losses over the next 12 months. Both mean political parties have effectively no functioning leader. The is now the lamest duck Prime Minister I've ever seen. The only agreement in the EU is that they are angry.

You see the best case scenario as the solutions to all of the issues. Best of luck with that.

For something that has never happened before you seem to have all the answers, you are wasted on a discussion board!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 02:12:00 PM
Many in Europe never wanted Britain joining the EU in the first place.

It has been a pretty obstructive and disruptive member over the years.

It has just caused absolute chaos in the EU.

And you think the EU will give Britain everything it wants on the way out?

Many didn't want an EU. None of that matters. It's not a game of I told Ye So.
The EU will capitalise on this, it's what they're designed to do. Britain will have to take a hit but not to the extent of pushing them further away.
It has not been a disruptive member it's been a very good member and like every COuntry (except Ireland) it has had it's issues. It's also got a couple of idiotic MEPs which we all have but for some reason he has a place on Irish TV and has had an impact on the Tory Party.

This is not Chaos. This is the Joe Brolly analysis. If you are not the leader you oppose the leader in order to be relevant. Every Tom Dick and Harry are writting the same things when they could just let one person write the story and agree with it.

Britain is not on it's way out, it's on it's way to have a chat with the EU to see how they can bluff there way through this. If not that then to see how long they can drag it out for.

Not unlike Bush declaring the war in Iraq as over or Obama taking the troops home.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 02:35:30 PM
Many in Europe never wanted Britain joining the EU in the first place.

It has been a pretty obstructive and disruptive member over the years.

It has just caused absolute chaos in the EU.

And you think the EU will give Britain everything it wants on the way out?

Many didn't want an EU. None of that matters. It's not a game of I told Ye So.
The EU will capitalise on this, it's what they're designed to do. Britain will have to take a hit but not to the extent of pushing them further away.
It has not been a disruptive member it's been a very good member and like every COuntry (except Ireland) it has had it's issues. It's also got a couple of idiotic MEPs which we all have but for some reason he has a place on Irish TV and has had an impact on the Tory Party.

This is not Chaos. This is the Joe Brolly analysis. If you are not the leader you oppose the leader in order to be relevant. Every Tom Dick and Harry are writting the same things when they could just let one person write the story and agree with it.

Britain is not on it's way out, it's on it's way to have a chat with the EU to see how they can bluff there way through this. If not that then to see how long they can drag it out for.

Not unlike Bush declaring the war in Iraq as over or Obama taking the troops home.

So you are saying Britain will ignore the vote?

I wish they would, but there is little chance of that, unless the next few weeks/months sees a serious economic crisis to force them down that road.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 02:47:46 PM

So you are saying Britain will ignore the vote?

I wish they would, but there is little chance of that, unless the next few weeks/months sees a serious economic crisis to force them down that road.

Not ignore it but just do enough to be able to say you're doing something.
Much like FG approach to the GFA. Here we are 20 years later and we have an assembly where nothing happens .
A few leaders later and it's not such a big deal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on June 27, 2016, 02:52:46 PM
This new phone is gonna screw with the minds of OWC

https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/26/india-4-dollar-smartphone-ships/ (https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/26/india-4-dollar-smartphone-ships/)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 02:53:01 PM

So you are saying Britain will ignore the vote?

I wish they would, but there is little chance of that, unless the next few weeks/months sees a serious economic crisis to force them down that road.

Not ignore it but just do enough to be able to say you're doing something.
Much like FG approach to the GFA. Here we are 20 years later and we have an assembly where nothing happens .
A few leaders later and it's not such a big deal.

We have already been through this phase this year with Cameron demanding a deal for Britain. Thatcher did the same in the 1980s when she got the rebate. Many in the EU are sick of Britain and especially the Tories.

The UK markets have already lost more since Brexit than they lost after Lehman Brothers collapsed. Sterling is at a 31 year low against the Dollar.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:03:42 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:08:28 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

Adams was the one calling for a border poll.

As for stability, there is no stability after the vote. There is limited time to do something about the massive problems it could trigger for us on this island, some more than others obviously. Doing nothing and calling it stability, is only an option if you can't think of anything better to do, which is probably exactly how they see it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:15:40 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

Adams was the one calling for a border poll.

As for stability, there is no stability after the vote. There is limited time to do something about the massive problems it could trigger for us on this island, some more than others obviously. Doing nothing and calling it stability, is only an option if you can't think of anything better to do, which is probably exactly how they see it.

A decision was made not to throw further unnecessary instability into the NI situation. Are you seriously lamenting that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:19:24 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

Adams was the one calling for a border poll.

As for stability, there is no stability after the vote. There is limited time to do something about the massive problems it could trigger for us on this island, some more than others obviously. Doing nothing and calling it stability, is only an option if you can't think of anything better to do, which is probably exactly how they see it.

A decision was made not to throw further unnecessary instability into the NI situation. Are you seriously lamenting that?

I am not calling for 'further unnecessary instability'.

I am calling for the opposite.

Doing nothing in a crisis is still doing nothing, no matter how you look at it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:26:18 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"
I'm fully aware to the fact that several shinners have called for a border poll. I am drawing attention to the fact that they have not done so in the specially convened debate in Stormont. It has been mentioned in the Dail debate (also onging) but only to reject it outright
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:27:51 PM
In the event of a UI and all ireland sports teams would northern supporters who withheld their support be labelled "bigots"?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:30:42 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"
I'm fully aware to the fact that several shinners have called for a border poll. I am drawing attention to the fact that they have not done so in the specially convened debate in Stormont. It has been mentioned in the Dail debate (also onging) but only to reject it outright

 ;D ;D

Why?

To keep it a secret from Unionists?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 03:39:00 PM
In the event of a UI and all ireland sports teams would northern supporters who withheld their support be labelled "bigots"?

Of course they would. Why on earth would you not support the team of your own country?

Marty was on the radio at lunchtime, he did mention the border poll but was more interested in the keeping NI in the EU.
The solution is to keep NI under British rule, but in the EU.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"
I'm fully aware to the fact that several shinners have called for a border poll. I am drawing attention to the fact that they have not done so in the specially convened debate in Stormont. It has been mentioned in the Dail debate (also onging) but only to reject it outright

 ;D ;D

Why?

To keep it a secret from Unionists?

Maybe that is why they are keeping hush on it now? Maybe you have it? Maybe your are the chief SF strategist?

Or possibly they have grown up and decided to stop shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:41:24 PM
In the event of a UI and all ireland sports teams would northern supporters who withheld their support be labelled "bigots"?

Of course they would. Why on earth would you not support the team of your own country?

Marty was on the radio at lunchtime, he did mention the border poll but was more interested in the keeping NI in the EU.
The solution is to keep NI under British rule, but in the EU.

So presumably its bigotry for someone from the north to support RoI and specifically not to support NI?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"
I'm fully aware to the fact that several shinners have called for a border poll. I am drawing attention to the fact that they have not done so in the specially convened debate in Stormont. It has been mentioned in the Dail debate (also onging) but only to reject it outright

 ;D ;D

Why?

To keep it a secret from Unionists?

Maybe that is why they are keeping hush on it now? Maybe you have it? Maybe your are the chief SF strategist?

Or possibly they have grown up and decided to stop shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring?

They are keeping a hush on it by announcing it to the media? I've heard it all now.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:49:31 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"
I'm fully aware to the fact that several shinners have called for a border poll. I am drawing attention to the fact that they have not done so in the specially convened debate in Stormont. It has been mentioned in the Dail debate (also onging) but only to reject it outright

 ;D ;D

Why?

To keep it a secret from Unionists?

Maybe that is why they are keeping hush on it now? Maybe you have it? Maybe your are the chief SF strategist?

Or possibly they have grown up and decided to stop shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring?

They are keeping a hush on it by announcing it to the media? I've heard it all now.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I realise that you are probably not as infantile as you are pretending to be.

The issue is why have they gone quiet on it (having previously been candid on the point) and why did they not mention in in the open debate today?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 03:55:17 PM
The latest analogy for the wee 6, reverse Greenland. Not a sexual position under a polar bearskin, but referring to the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark but is not in the EU. Reverse Greenland would place NI in the EU, but still under British rule.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"
I'm fully aware to the fact that several shinners have called for a border poll. I am drawing attention to the fact that they have not done so in the specially convened debate in Stormont. It has been mentioned in the Dail debate (also onging) but only to reject it outright

 ;D ;D

Why?

To keep it a secret from Unionists?

Maybe that is why they are keeping hush on it now? Maybe you have it? Maybe your are the chief SF strategist?

Or possibly they have grown up and decided to stop shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring?

They are keeping a hush on it by announcing it to the media? I've heard it all now.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I realise that you are probably not as infantile as you are pretending to be.

The issue is why have they gone quiet on it (having previously been candid on the point) and why did they not mention in in the open debate today?

Adams, McGuinness and Mary Lou have all raised it in the media since Friday, so saying 'they have gone quiet on it' is not representing the reality at all.

As for not mentioning in the debate today in Stormont, who knows? Stormont will have no say in what happens next, so maybe that is why they are saying it publicly elsewhere, who knows how they see it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:03:09 PM
The latest analogy for the wee 6, reverse Greenland. Not a sexual position under a polar bearskin, but referring to the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark but is not in the EU. Reverse Greenland would place NI in the EU, but still under British rule.

We have a dysfunctional economy but not quite as narrowly based as Greenland. If the NI population could all fit in Kilkeel and Ardglass and the rest was just an icefield then maybe we could sit out the rest of UK
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:05:51 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915)

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"
I'm fully aware to the fact that several shinners have called for a border poll. I am drawing attention to the fact that they have not done so in the specially convened debate in Stormont. It has been mentioned in the Dail debate (also onging) but only to reject it outright

 ;D ;D

Why?

To keep it a secret from Unionists?

Maybe that is why they are keeping hush on it now? Maybe you have it? Maybe your are the chief SF strategist?

Or possibly they have grown up and decided to stop shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring?

They are keeping a hush on it by announcing it to the media? I've heard it all now.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I realise that you are probably not as infantile as you are pretending to be.

The issue is why have they gone quiet on it (having previously been candid on the point) and why did they not mention in in the open debate today?

Adams, McGuinness and Mary Lou have all raised it in the media since Friday, so saying 'they have gone quiet on it' is not representing the reality at all.

As for not mentioning in the debate today in Stormont, who knows? Stormont will have no say in what happens next, so maybe that is why they are saying it publicly elsewhere, who knows how they see it.

You might have a point if they were dismissing the stormont debate altogether. But they specifically are involved in the debate and specifically not mentioning (or exposing to debate) the very thing that they were tripping over themselves to get out as their first up reaction to the Brexit vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have gone quiet in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

No, I agree that if they raise the issue of a border poll publicly, but duck the issue in open debate, then it would be cowardice.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

No, I agree that if they raise the issue of a border poll publicly, but duck the issue in open debate, then it would be cowardice.

And specifically on the issue of raising it at all just to stir the pot?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 04:55:38 PM
The latest analogy for the wee 6, reverse Greenland. Not a sexual position under a polar bearskin, but referring to the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark but is not in the EU. Reverse Greenland would place NI in the EU, but still under British rule.

We have a dysfunctional economy but not quite as narrowly based as Greenland. If the NI population could all fit in Kilkeel and Ardglass and the rest was just an icefield then maybe we could sit out the rest of UK

The issue is a devolved region having a different EU status from its sovereign, not the nature of its economy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:57:51 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

No, I agree that if they raise the issue of a border poll publicly, but duck the issue in open debate, then it would be cowardice.

And specifically on the issue of raising it at all just to stir the pot?

Bad idea.

I said that at the very start after Adams came out with his border poll proposal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

No, I agree that if they raise the issue of a border poll publicly, but duck the issue in open debate, then it would be cowardice.

And specifically on the issue of raising it at all just to stir the pot?

Bad idea.

I said that at the very start after Adams came out with his border poll proposal.

Then we are in agreement. Unfortunately I know too many who think that anything that causes consternation in unionism is automatically a good thing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 12, 2016, 02:49:51 PM
Interestingly the GFA (actual text here  http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf) does not explicitly require the UK remain in the EU as some (including myself) thought. There are however very implicit references, the agreement rests on the Council of Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe), and very heavily on the shoulders of the European Court of Human Rights. If the UK steps away from the ECHR then the agreement requires that a NI Human Rights Charter supersedes it.

For the points below, there is a fundamental difference in the language of the agreement between obligations ("will meet") and recommendations ("may discuss" or "could consider") I have covered only the obligations below:

There is a clause relating to EU relationships relating to the Stormont Assembly
Quote
Terms will be agreed between appropriate Assembly representatives and the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure effective co-ordination and input by Ministers to national policy-making, including on EU issues

Where it gets significantly more interesting is around the North/ South Ministerial Council, including requiring meetings on the EU
Quote
The Council to meet in different formats:
(i) in plenary format twice a year, with Northern Ireland representation led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the Irish Government led by the Taoiseach;
(ii) in specific sectoral formats on a regular and frequent basis with each side represented by the appropriate Minister;
(iii) in an appropriate format to consider institutional or cross-sectoral matters (including in relation to the EU) and to resolve disagreement.

Not only that but 
Quote
The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.

I'm not sure how you can have the implementation of EU policies and programs in the EU framework with NI out of the EU.

But I think that the kicker, and the reason that there is a lot of consternation in Dublin, London and Stormont regarding the legality of the GFA outside of the framework of Northern Ireland being excluded from the EU is one of the 5 principles outlined in the Introduction to the agreement:

Quote
The British and Irish Governments:
1. Welcoming the strong commitment to the Agreement reached on 10th April 1998 by themselves and other participants in the multi-party talks and set out in Annex 1 to this Agreement (hereinafter "the Multi-Party Agreement");
2. Considering that the Multi-Party Agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning in relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands;
3. Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
4. Reaffirming their total commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have been fundamental to the multi-party talks;
5. Reaffirming their commitment to the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect and to the protection of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights in their respective jurisdictions;

On May 22nd the referendum asked : "Do you support the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?"

One for the constitutional and international agreement lawyers to argue and for us punters to discuss (or offer pontifications- a rather annoying speciality of mine), if we are no longer partners in the European Union, is the result of the referendum still valid, and does the GFA still hold?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 12, 2016, 02:58:48 PM
But I think that the kicker, and the reason that there is a lot of consternation in Dublin, London and Stormont regarding the legality of the GFA outside of the framework of Northern Ireland being excluded from the EU is one of the 5 principles outlined in the Introduction to the agreement:

Quote
The British and Irish Governments:
1. Welcoming the strong commitment to the Agreement reached on 10th April 1998 by themselves and other participants in the multi-party talks and set out in Annex 1 to this Agreement (hereinafter "the Multi-Party Agreement");
2. Considering that the Multi-Party Agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning in relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands;
3. Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
4. Reaffirming their total commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have been fundamental to the multi-party talks;
5. Reaffirming their commitment to the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect and to the protection of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights in their respective jurisdictions;

On May 22nd the referendum asked : "Do you support the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?"

One for the constitutional and international agreement lawyers to argue and for us punters to discuss (or offer pontifications- a rather annoying speciality of mine), if we are no longer partners in the European Union, is the result of the referendum still valid, and does the GFA still hold?

I think that nationalists, ideally with the help of the US, should interpret this as meaning that the UK has unilaterally reneged on the GFA. There should be no smoothing over of this issue. Having reneged on the existing agreement, if the British want another one then the various requirements discussed elsewhere of e.g. no border control, no passports, no customs, no mobile phone roaming charges, companies being able to tender for public projects throughout the island etc must be written into a cast iron new agreement before anyone declares things fixed.

I'm concerned that the useless politicians will just roll over.  Too much political work went into the GFA for it to be discarded lightly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on July 12, 2016, 03:10:20 PM
But I think that the kicker, and the reason that there is a lot of consternation in Dublin, London and Stormont regarding the legality of the GFA outside of the framework of Northern Ireland being excluded from the EU is one of the 5 principles outlined in the Introduction to the agreement:

Quote
The British and Irish Governments:
1. Welcoming the strong commitment to the Agreement reached on 10th April 1998 by themselves and other participants in the multi-party talks and set out i