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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
QuoteHow 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
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 05:38:24 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
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 05:38:24 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
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:02:01 PM
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 05:38:24 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
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:07:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:02:01 PM
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 05:38:24 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
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:07:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:02:01 PM
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 05:38:24 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
Quote from: 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.


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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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



QuoteIt 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
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

;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
Quote from: 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?
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
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 12:00:50 AM
Quote from: 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?
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
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 12:00:50 AM
Quote from: 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?
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
Quote from: 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.

Poe's Law?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on May 28, 2015, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 27, 2015, 11:46:16 PM
Quote from: 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.

;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.

(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/06/mcguinness-and-adams.jpg)

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
Quote from: 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)

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
Quote from: longballin on May 28, 2015, 12:15:56 PM
Quote from: 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)

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
Quote from: 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)

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: BennyCake on May 28, 2015, 02:17:07 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Bingo on May 28, 2015, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 28, 2015, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: Bingo on May 28, 2015, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Bingo on May 28, 2015, 04:05:17 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 28, 2015, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: Bingo on May 28, 2015, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 28, 2015, 02:47:24 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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:

Quote from: Ulick on November 20, 2015, 01:37:52 PM
"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."

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/90/90be81268fdfdd00d61d82f54dd6922429fa09ecea962ec075cef4727e383229.jpg)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: general_lee on November 20, 2015, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 04:20:34 PM
Quote from: general_lee on November 20, 2015, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:02:37 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
Quote from: Orior on November 20, 2015, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:02:37 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
Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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. 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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: BennyCake on June 01, 2015, 03:37:35 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: Farrandeelin on November 20, 2015, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 04:39:43 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 04:20:34 PM
Quote from: general_lee on November 20, 2015, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:24:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 04:39:43 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 04:20:34 PM
Quote from: general_lee on November 20, 2015, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 20, 2015, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: winghalfback on May 27, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: Farrandeelin on November 20, 2015, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: deiseach on November 21, 2015, 07:16:13 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on November 20, 2015, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: cadhlancian on November 21, 2015, 09:14:43 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
Quote from: deiseach on November 21, 2015, 07:16:13 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on November 20, 2015, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: 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.

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:

Quote from: lynchbhoy on November 13, 2014, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 13, 2014, 02:50:38 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on November 13, 2014, 02:30:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on November 13, 2014, 02:24:24 PM
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
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: armaghniac on November 21, 2015, 07:28:44 AM
Quote from: deiseach on November 21, 2015, 07:16:13 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on November 20, 2015, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:53:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:53:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:20:43 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:53:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 02:28:58 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:20:43 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:53:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 02:28:58 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:20:43 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:53:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 02:54:34 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 02:28:58 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 02:20:43 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:53:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 21, 2015, 08:54:55 AM
Quote from: 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.

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%20again,%20nobody%20asked%20you%20to%20go%20off%20and%20die. %20all%20was%20asked%20was%20that%20you%20didn't%20vote%20to%20split%20your%20country.)

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
Quote from: 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%20again,%20nobody%20asked%20you%20to%20go%20off%20and%20die. %20all%20was%20asked%20was%20that%20you%20didn't%20vote%20to%20split%20your%20country.)

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
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12227625_901531429925110_6108227189576120633_n.png?oh=a514e55635193f9347196d4e2b718a52&oe=56F5C271)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trileacman on November 21, 2015, 08:50:11 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 21, 2015, 08:37:08 PM
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12227625_901531429925110_6108227189576120633_n.png?oh=a514e55635193f9347196d4e2b718a52&oe=56F5C271)

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
Quote from: trileacman on November 21, 2015, 08:50:11 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
Quote from: trileacman on November 21, 2015, 08:50:11 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 21, 2015, 08:37:08 PM
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12227625_901531429925110_6108227189576120633_n.png?oh=a514e55635193f9347196d4e2b718a52&oe=56F5C271)

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
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: 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%20again,%20nobody%20asked%20you%20to%20go%20off%20and%20die. %20all%20was%20asked%20was%20that%20you%20didn't%20vote%20to%20split%20your%20country.)

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
Quote from: Ulick on November 22, 2015, 12:28:51 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
Quote from: muppet on November 22, 2015, 01:08:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: 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%20again,%20nobody%20asked%20you%20to%20go%20off%20and%20die. %20all%20was%20asked%20was%20that%20you%20didn't%20vote%20to%20split%20your%20country.)

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
Quote from: Franko on November 23, 2015, 09:12:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 22, 2015, 01:08:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: 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%20again,%20nobody%20asked%20you%20to%20go%20off%20and%20die. %20all%20was%20asked%20was%20that%20you%20didn't%20vote%20to%20split%20your%20country.)

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
Quote from: seafoid on November 22, 2015, 01:08:46 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
Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on November 23, 2015, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 22, 2015, 01:08:46 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
Quote from: Franko on November 23, 2015, 09:12:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 22, 2015, 01:08:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: 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%20again,%20nobody%20asked%20you%20to%20go%20off%20and%20die. %20all%20was%20asked%20was%20that%20you%20didn't%20vote%20to%20split%20your%20country.)

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
Quote from: muppet on November 23, 2015, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 23, 2015, 09:12:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 22, 2015, 01:08:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: 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%20again,%20nobody%20asked%20you%20to%20go%20off%20and%20die. %20all%20was%20asked%20was%20that%20you%20didn't%20vote%20to%20split%20your%20country.)

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
Quote from: 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.
+1.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 23, 2015, 04:41:36 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 23, 2015, 04:41:36 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: LeoMc on November 23, 2015, 12:34:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 23, 2015, 09:12:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 22, 2015, 01:08:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2015, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: 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%20again,%20nobody%20asked%20you%20to%20go%20off%20and%20die. %20all%20was%20asked%20was%20that%20you%20didn't%20vote%20to%20split%20your%20country.)

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
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 20, 2015, 05:47:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:46:57 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
Quote from: Kidder81 on November 23, 2015, 10:53:29 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
Quote from: armaghniac on November 23, 2015, 10:52:33 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:46:57 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.

Nail on the head.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 24, 2015, 03:43:38 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:46:57 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 20, 2015, 05:47:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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?

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):

QuoteThis 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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: Rossfan on November 24, 2015, 11:56:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 01:32:55 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 01:32:55 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 01:32:55 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on November 24, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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 ??

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: 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 ??

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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:45:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
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
Quote from: Kidder81 on November 23, 2015, 10:53:29 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
Quote from: armaghniac on November 24, 2015, 05:55:45 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
Quote from: armaghniac on November 24, 2015, 05:55:45 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:45:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 07:50:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:45:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 08:12:09 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 07:50:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:45:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 08:26:38 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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 08:42:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 08:26:38 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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 09:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 08:42:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 08:26:38 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.

QuoteOr 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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 09:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 08:42:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 08:26:38 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.

QuoteOr 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
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 24, 2015, 03:43:38 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:46:57 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 20, 2015, 05:47:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:14:06 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 09:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 08:42:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 08:26:38 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.

QuoteOr 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
Quote from: smelmoth on November 24, 2015, 10:24:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 24, 2015, 03:43:38 AM
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
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 11:05:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 10:14:06 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 09:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 24, 2015, 08:42:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 08:26:38 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.

QuoteOr 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
Quote from: Franko on November 24, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: 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 ??

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
Quote from: armaghniac on November 23, 2015, 10:52:33 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:46:57 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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 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.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 26, 2015, 04:57:46 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 06:48:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 26, 2015, 04:57:46 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.

QuoteThat'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
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 26, 2015, 06:15:44 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 06:48:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 26, 2015, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 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
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 26, 2015, 02:01:15 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 26, 2015, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 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
Quote from: 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........... ::)
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
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 06:48:19 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
Quote from: 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........... ::)

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: armaghniac on November 26, 2015, 05:33:47 PM
Quote from: 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........... ::)

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
Quote from: Rossfan on November 26, 2015, 07:17:18 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. 

QuoteAs 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
Quote from: armaghniac on November 26, 2015, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 26, 2015, 07:17:18 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. 

QuoteAs 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
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 26, 2015, 10:50:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 26, 2015, 10:50:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: muppet on November 26, 2015, 05:22:29 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 06:48:19 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.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 27, 2015, 11:27:12 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on November 27, 2015, 10:56:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 26, 2015, 05:22:29 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 06:48:19 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.
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
Quote from: johnneycool on November 27, 2015, 10:56:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 26, 2015, 05:22:29 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 25, 2015, 06:48:19 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
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 11:38:46 AM
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 29, 2015, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 11:38:46 AM
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 06:18:54 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 29, 2015, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 11:38:46 AM
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 29, 2015, 07:41:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 06:18:54 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 29, 2015, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 29, 2015, 11:38:46 AM
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: michaelg on November 29, 2015, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2015, 05:13:23 AM
Quote from: michaelg on November 29, 2015, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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?
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

(https://healingfromcomplextraumaandptsd.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/7f634e05888db8aaa23a62df0aa5d5a86705622a.jpg)
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: johnneycool on January 14, 2016, 09:24:16 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

How is NI21 doing, then. With 50% of potential voters they should do real well.

QuoteThe 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.

(http://wellingpropertyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Broken-Record-psd53198.png)
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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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 ".

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
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 15, 2016, 09:48:17 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
Quote from: 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


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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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 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 FearonThe 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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 15, 2016, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: 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 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 FearonThe 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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 15, 2016, 11:33:53 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 15, 2016, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: 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 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 FearonThe 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 16, 2016, 08:52:57 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 15, 2016, 11:33:53 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 15, 2016, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: 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 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 FearonThe 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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 10:00:51 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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 16, 2016, 10:10:57 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 10:00:51 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 10:52:50 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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 16, 2016, 11:35:25 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 10:52:50 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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 11:51:34 PM
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.

QuoteSecondly - 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.

QuoteThirdly - 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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2016, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 11:51:34 PM
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+?

Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2016, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 11:51:34 PM
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?

Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2016, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 16, 2016, 11:51:34 PM
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 17, 2016, 09:30:57 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
Quote from: general_lee on January 17, 2016, 10:09:35 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 17, 2016, 09:30:57 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
Quote from: 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 .

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 19, 2016, 09:49:06 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 04:46:54 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: Na Glinntí Glasa 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
Quote from: 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 anyone is suggesting that all relationships are problematic.

Quote from: T FearonI 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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 19, 2016, 10:36:44 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
Quote from: 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.
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. 


QuoteReasons 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
Quote from: 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).

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 11:15:54 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
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: Rossfan on January 20, 2016, 11:44:54 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 11:15:54 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?
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 09:45:29 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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 09:45:29 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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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"
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: LeoMc on January 21, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: HiMucker on January 21, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
Quote from: 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"
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
Quote from: LeoMc on January 21, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 21, 2016, 04:38:20 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
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2016, 11:56:22 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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%-

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
Quote from: seafoid on January 19, 2016, 08:56:12 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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"

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
Quote from: No wides on January 20, 2016, 01:43:55 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: seafoid on January 20, 2016, 02:07:36 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 20, 2016, 10:08:41 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
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:56:13 PM
Quote from: 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"

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:04:39 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Rossfan on January 22, 2016, 12:00:22 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 08:41:54 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:56:13 PM
Quote from: 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"

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
Quote from: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 08:51:25 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:04:39 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 08:41:54 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:56:13 PM
Quote from: 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"

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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 22, 2016, 12:00:22 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2016, 04:32:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 22, 2016, 12:00:22 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 08:41:54 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:56:13 PM
Quote from: 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"

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: general_lee on January 24, 2016, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: general_lee on January 24, 2016, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: seafoid on January 24, 2016, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 24, 2016, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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😮

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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
Quote from: 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😮

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.

Quote from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
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
Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:32:18 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.

QuoteAnd 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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:32:18 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 from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 04:38:40 PM
QuoteAnd 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
Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:49:00 PM
So what would you do with pro-union votes? GFA and all that?


Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:49:00 PM
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: LCohenYou 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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 06:01:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:49:00 PM
So what would you do with pro-union votes? GFA and all that?


Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:49:00 PM
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: LCohenYou 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
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 24, 2016, 09:48:34 PM
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: smelmoth on January 24, 2016, 09:32:04 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?

QuoteAnd 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: smelmothThere 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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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.


Quote from: 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...

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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2016, 09:36:08 PM
Quote from: 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.

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.


Quote from: 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...

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
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 25, 2016, 10:03:38 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
Quote from: 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?


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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 06:15:42 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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 06:49:56 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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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.

Quoteone 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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 10:30:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 10:30:52 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.

Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:39:03 PM
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
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:39:03 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 10:30:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 26, 2016, 10:53:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 10:30:52 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.

Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:39:03 PM
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
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: AQMP on January 27, 2016, 09:18:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:39:03 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 10:30:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 27, 2016, 03:38:07 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:39:03 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 10:30:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 06:36:34 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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 27, 2016, 06:48:17 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 06:36:34 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
Quote from: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 07:14:20 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.

QuoteYou 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
Quote from: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 09:50:09 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
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: armaghniac on January 27, 2016, 07:23:06 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 07:14:20 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.

QuoteYou 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
Quote from: andoireabu on January 27, 2016, 09:21:51 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: general_lee on January 27, 2016, 10:33:24 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
Quote from: LeoMc on January 27, 2016, 10:39:09 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 27, 2016, 10:33:24 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
+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
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2016, 11:06:54 AM
Quote from: 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.
+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
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2016, 11:06:54 AM
Quote from: 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.
+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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: LeoMc on January 28, 2016, 10:08:22 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: LeoMc on January 28, 2016, 01:18:45 PM
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
Quote from: michaelg on January 27, 2016, 06:36:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 27, 2016, 03:38:07 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 10:39:03 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2016, 10:30:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 26, 2016, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 29, 2016, 04:36:56 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 28, 2016, 01:18:45 PM
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
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2016, 11:57:11 AM
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
Quote from: 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 .

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
Quote from: The Down Way on June 26, 2016, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2016, 11:57:11 AM
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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 .

Yet Fermanagh get in?!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 26, 2016, 08:15:39 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 26, 2016, 07:43:32 PM
Quote from: 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 .

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 11:14:10 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:33:17 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 12:40:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:33:17 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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 11:14:10 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:33:17 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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 11:14:10 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 12:54:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:33:17 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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:55:03 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 11:14:10 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:55:03 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:55:03 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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:57:03 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.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:04:12 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:55:03 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:01:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:57:03 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:04:12 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:55:03 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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 01:08:11 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:10:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 01:08:11 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 12:55:03 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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:08:03 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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 01:08:11 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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:16:22 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:19:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:16:22 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:16:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:08:03 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:19:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:16:22 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
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 01:22:16 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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:24:57 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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:23:14 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:24:57 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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 01:27:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 01:24:57 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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 02:12:00 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 02:35:30 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
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2016, 02:47:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 02:35:30 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.

(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12DCE/production/_90126277_sterling_value_624gr-2.png)
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 dickheads
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:08:28 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:08:28 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:08:28 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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"?

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: 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"?

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:57:51 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
QuoteTerms 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
QuoteThe 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 
QuoteThe 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:

QuoteThe 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
Quote from: heganboy on July 12, 2016, 02:49:51 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:

QuoteThe 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
Quote from: armaghniac on July 12, 2016, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: heganboy on July 12, 2016, 02:49:51 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:

QuoteThe 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.
the level of sterling depends on how well the Brits negotiate with Europe. If they get a deal like the outline of EU membership, sterling goes to 1.45 vs the dollar
If they don't , it goes between 1.20 and 1.30
the last time they negotiated trade seriously was 1973
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpoCR3N2T1I


I bet they drop Brexit
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bcarrier on July 13, 2016, 10:59:00 AM

Quotethe level of sterling depends on how well the Brits negotiate with Europe. If they get a deal like the outline of EU membership, sterling goes to 1.45 vs the dollar
If they don't , it goes between 1.20 and 1.30
the last time they negotiated trade seriously was 1973

I bet they drop Brexit

They will probably be happy with a lower exchange rate which can offset effect of any tariffs.

The only thing they probably really want to hold onto is passporting for financial services.


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on July 13, 2016, 04:37:08 PM
Quote from: bcarrier on July 13, 2016, 10:59:00 AM

Quotethe level of sterling depends on how well the Brits negotiate with Europe. If they get a deal like the outline of EU membership, sterling goes to 1.45 vs the dollar
If they don't , it goes between 1.20 and 1.30
the last time they negotiated trade seriously was 1973

I bet they drop Brexit

They will probably be happy with a lower exchange rate which can offset effect of any tariffs.

The only thing they probably really want to hold onto is passporting for financial services.

The Passporting it he biggest leverage the EU have on them. Paris / Frankfurt / Dublin would all love a share of that. Not just the 000's of jobs but the tax take.

The lower exchange rate does nothing positive for anyone bringing in raw materials from outside the Country, Tarrifs would be a double whammy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 14, 2016, 01:21:58 PM
Villiers gone, no replacement yet.

one comment on another forum that puts it in this thread "may the next one be the last one" blind optimism from one camp...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 14, 2016, 01:32:02 PM
Quote from: heganboy on July 14, 2016, 01:21:58 PM
Villiers gone, no replacement yet.

one comment on another forum that puts it in this thread "may the next one be the last one" blind optimism from one camp...

A job for Baron (Christopher) Patten of Barnes?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on July 14, 2016, 04:00:46 PM
Quite appropriate that the new SoS is called Brokenshire.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Aristo 60 on July 14, 2016, 04:35:06 PM
Ye couldn't make it up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 17, 2016, 08:28:20 PM
Micheál Martin joins the debate:
.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/17/micheal-martin-says-ireland-could-see-reunification-referendum

The leader of Ireland's main opposition party said he hopes Brexit will move Ireland closer to reunification.

Micheál Martin said a reunification referendum should be called if it becomes clear a majority want to see an end to Irish partition over the UK decision to leave the EU.

The Fianna Fáil leader added that Northern Ireland's 56% majority vote to remain within the bloc could be a defining moment for the region. He made his remarks delivering the annual John Hume lecture at the MacGill Summer School in Glenties, Co Donegal.

"It may very well be that the decision of Northern Ireland to oppose the English-driven anti-EU UK majority is a defining moment in Northern politics," he saiD


"The remain vote may show people the need to rethink current arrangements. I hope it moves us towards majority support for unification, and if it does we should trigger a reunification referendum.

"However, at this moment the only evidence we have is that the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to maintain open borders and a single market with this jurisdiction, and beyond that with the rest of Europe."

The 310-mile border that separates the island of Ireland is the only land border between the UK and the rest of the EU. Although heavily militarised with checkpoints and road closures during the Troubles, the peace process has opened up a seamless crossing between both jurisdictions.

Tens of thousands of people pass over the border every day on their way to work, for shopping or on day trips. Concerns about its status after the Brexit result – and whether free movement of people, goods and services will be affected – have dominated political debate since the poll.



During the referendum campaign, Theresa May indicated some form of border control would be required in Ireland if the UK voted to leave the EU. But just last week, Northern Ireland's new secretary of state James Brokenshire insisted he does not want to see a hardening of the border.

Martin, a former foreign affairs minister whose party is leading opinion polls and whose backing is needed by the minority Fine Gael government, said any "new barriers between both parts of this island would potentially set us back decades".

"The most urgent thing which is required is an immediate end to the hands-off detachment of recent years," he said.

"It is a sad reality that our government and our media have tended to ignore Northern Ireland except when there is a crisis.

"Meeting the challenge of Brexit is a moment to end this and also to begin rebuilding public faith in politics."


Martin called for an all-island response to Brexit that reaches out "to excluded groups, to show that a broader range of interests than those articulated by the dominant political parties can be heard".

He added: "I have in particular stressed our belief that civil society must be included together with business, unions and professional organisations."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on July 17, 2016, 09:00:24 PM
Fianna fail have aspirations for a united Ireland??

Is it april 1st?

Someone better break the news gently to the ex-wicklow party chairman. The fat f**ker will have a heart-attack.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 18, 2016, 09:12:11 PM
Enda Kenny on the case now, suggesting that a UI was one solution to the NI EU problem.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ashman on July 18, 2016, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on July 17, 2016, 09:00:24 PM
Fianna fail have aspirations for a united Ireland??

Is it april 1st?

Someone better break the news gently to the ex-wicklow party chairman. The fat f**ker will have a heart-attack.

FF have gazumped your mob here kiddo . 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 09:55:12 PM
Do the recent comments by Martin and by Enda signify that change is coming, and the British government has told Dublin that they will probably offer us a border poll sometime in the not so distant future?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on July 18, 2016, 10:03:36 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 09:55:12 PM
Do the recent comments by Martin and by Enda signify that change is coming, and the British government has told Dublin that they will probably offer us a border poll sometime in the not so distant future?

I don't think so.

It could be simply a strategic card that I hope hasn't been played too early. If Foster isn't playing ball with the UK, then this is the sort of thing that London would use to put manners on her, but of course they couldn't say it publicly themselves. So Dublin would say it.

However it is very hard to believe that Dublin and the new mob in London even have a hymn sheet yet, never mind that they are singing off it.

So I'd guess Martin is doing it with an eye on SF votes at the next election and Enda is responding to that. But I hope I am wrong.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 18, 2016, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 09:55:12 PM
Do the recent comments by Martin and by Enda signify that change is coming, and the British government has told Dublin that they will probably offer us a border poll sometime in the not so distant future?

You wouldn't know, Cameron's last call to Enda might have said that he was recommending his successor to get rid of the whole mess. Scotland is the confusing factor here, to get rid of NI London needs to provide a generous dowry and they cannot easily come up with a formula that would give Scotland feck all while providing for NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 10:09:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on July 18, 2016, 10:03:36 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 09:55:12 PM
Do the recent comments by Martin and by Enda signify that change is coming, and the British government has told Dublin that they will probably offer us a border poll sometime in the not so distant future?

I don't think so.

It could be simply a strategic card that I hope hasn't been played too early. If Foster isn't playing ball with the UK, then this is the sort of thing that London would use to put manners on her, but of course they couldn't say it publicly themselves. So Dublin would say it.

However it is very hard to believe that Dublin and the new mob in London even have a hymn sheet yet, never mind that they are singing off it.

So I'd guess Martin is doing it with an eye on SF votes at the next election and Enda is responding to that. But I hope I am wrong.

When Martin came out with it, I thought it was a play for some of the SF votes and with an eye on northern nationalist votes when (if they carry through with their plans to) contest the Stormont elections in 2019, but most people in the south who would be swayed by a republican/nationalist tone wouldn't look at FG let alone vote for them.

Like armaghniac, I think that Westminster might see this as an ideal time to get rid of us, and in the existing turbulence and turmoil, nobody will even notice. But you have a point in that a hymn sheet probably hasn't been drawn up yet, let alone communicated to Dublin.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 18, 2016, 10:32:52 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 10:09:15 PM
But you have a point in that a hymn sheet probably hasn't been drawn up yet, let alone communicated to Dublin.

What hymns are there do you think?

God Moves in a Mysterious Way
How Firm A Foundation
I Vow To Thee My Country
And Can It Be

Probably not Jerusalem.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 10:34:28 PM
Depends who is in on the making of it, some of the fleggers would tell you that The Sash is a hymn.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on July 18, 2016, 10:56:26 PM
I can only see this as Micheal chancing his arm with those who have a renewed sense of nationalism after the 1916 events this year.
Lots of potential young voters to be influenced who probably think that Bertie and Brian are those lads off Sesame Street.




Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ashman on July 18, 2016, 11:01:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on July 18, 2016, 10:56:26 PM
I can only see this as Micheal chancing his arm with those who have a renewed sense of nationalism after the 1916 events this year.
Lots of potential young voters to be influenced who probably think that Bertie and Brian are those lads off Sesame Street.

Your boys got gazumped here foxy ; 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on July 18, 2016, 11:06:14 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 18, 2016, 10:32:52 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 10:09:15 PM
But you have a point in that a hymn sheet probably hasn't been drawn up yet, let alone communicated to Dublin.

What hymns are there do you think?

God Moves in a Mysterious Way
How Firm A Foundation
I Vow To Thee My Country
And Can It Be

Probably not Jerusalem.

Make me a (deeper) Channel of your Peace
A Maze in Grace
Bojo, Ye Spanish Harlot
Little Drummer Bhoy
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on July 18, 2016, 11:13:45 PM
This Brokenshire fella is having none of it...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hereiam on July 18, 2016, 11:25:17 PM
He looks like a right english w**ker
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 18, 2016, 11:27:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on July 18, 2016, 11:06:14 PM
Make me a (deeper) Channel of your Peace
A Maze in Grace
Bojo, Ye Spanish Harlot
Little Drummer Bhoy

All God's People Come Together
Bind us Together Lord
Céad Míle Fáilte Romhat
Do Not Be Afraid
Now Thank we all our God



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on July 18, 2016, 11:30:41 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 18, 2016, 11:27:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on July 18, 2016, 11:06:14 PM
Make me a (deeper) Channel of your Peace
A Maze in Grace
Bojo, Ye Spanish Harlot
Little Drummer Bhoy

All God's People Come Together
Bind us Together Lord
Céad Míle Fáilte Romhat
Do Not Be Afraid
Now Thank we all our God

Lady of Knock must be in there somewhere.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 19, 2016, 12:32:54 AM
Fascinating stuff

Kenny saying that NI would be straight into the EU just like the reunification of Germany.

The country hasn't heard this kind of rhetoric about the North from politicians in 80 years!

Now here is what it gets interesting. Those three parties together represent 75% of the dáil.

Would the EU question given the projected decimation of the NI economy be enough to trigger 50% + 1?

Paddy Power. Where are you on this one?



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 19, 2016, 01:12:13 AM
I'd  say the idea here is to put a bit of pressure on  Foster,  whose present stance is that NI not get a special deal. Basically to get to a point where a NI more e economically integrated with the South in some special deal is regarded by unionists as better than the alternative.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on July 19, 2016, 06:46:41 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on July 18, 2016, 11:25:17 PM
He looks like a right english w**ker
He does. However until he, or whoever succeeds him calls a border poll, there won't be one. So basically, it's all depending on one official to call it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on July 19, 2016, 08:51:15 AM
This will put no pressure on Foster, there will be no poll and even if there was there is no way unionists will abandon the UK even if they did vote remain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 19, 2016, 12:30:13 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on July 19, 2016, 08:51:15 AM
This will put no pressure on Foster, there will be no poll and even if there was there is no way unionists will abandon the UK even if they did vote remain.

Proper unionists are now in a minority and there is a significant wedge of expedient unionists who regarded the continuation of the union as the simplest thing for stability. Brexit means that the union now offers instability, especially if Scotland reaches escape velocity. Now I am not saying that a poll would pass, but we are now entering a period when the DUP cannot simply try and line people up and assume that there will always be more unionists on every issue, there will not.

What people in NI want is for this Brexit crap to be sorted with whatever special arrangements are required to keep the border as it is and which does not disadvantage border regions. Foster doesn't want special arrangements, but the majority of NI people do and she must put up with it. Some of this is just setting the tone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 19, 2016, 09:49:58 PM
The border poll defined in the GFA is meaningless.The wording states that if such a poll indicates majority support for a United Ireland "both governments are committed to taking cognisance of this and coming up with an agreed way forward" That's a far cry from a commitment to implementing a united Ireland,and either or both Govt's can veto it and there is no timescale mentioned whatsoever
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 19, 2016, 09:56:59 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 19, 2016, 09:49:58 PM
The border poll defined in the GFA is meaningless.The wording states that if such a poll indicates majority support for a United Ireland "both governments are committed to taking cognisance of this and coming up with an agreed way forward" That's a far cry from a commitment to implementing a united Ireland,and either or both Govt's can veto it and there is no timescale mentioned whatsoever

Even you Tony are not claiming that if the Poll was for a UI that they weren't going to implement it! There would be quite a few loose ends to tidy up so some time would be needed. But a successful poll would need a clear plan beforehand and this would cut down the time needed. The trick is to ensure that the poll is held after a proper plan and not Brexit style with no plan.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 19, 2016, 10:00:31 PM
They are not leaving the EU in any hurry.Read the GFA.There is no firm commitment to implementing the results of a border poll should one take place and return a majority vote for constitutional change
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on July 19, 2016, 10:00:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 19, 2016, 09:49:58 PM
The border poll defined in the GFA is meaningless.The wording states that if such a poll indicates majority support for a United Ireland "both governments are committed to taking cognisance of this and coming up with an agreed way forward" That's a far cry from a commitment to implementing a united Ireland,and either or both Govt's can veto it and there is no timescale mentioned whatsoever

Yes and a Brexit vote isn't binding so means nothing.

..Oh wait!

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 19, 2016, 10:41:27 PM
Read the section on the poll in the GFA.Why doesn't it say that in the event of a poll resulting in majority support for a United Ireland,both governments will legislate for this with immediate effect?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on July 20, 2016, 12:00:27 AM
Was speaking with one of the negotiators of the GFA earlier, he stated that the DUP haven't a clue what they've let themselves in for. Apparently the two guarantors of the Agreement are the EU and the US, The Brits don't actually have sovereignty over the north, they are the de facto administrative authority and cannot exit the EU without the approval of the people of the north. Any changes to the agreement will more than likely require a referendum probably both sides of the border. Mike Nesbitt has copped on to this, Arlene not yet, publicly at least.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 20, 2016, 12:11:38 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on July 20, 2016, 12:00:27 AM
Was speaking with one of the negotiators of the GFA earlier, he stated that the DUP haven't a clue what they've let themselves in for. Apparently the two guarantors of the Agreement are the EU and the US, The Brits don't actually have sovereignty over the north, they are the de facto administrative authority and cannot exit the EU without the approval of the people of the north. Any changes to the agreement will more than likely require a referendum probably both sides of the border. Mike Nesbitt has copped on to this, Arlene not yet, publicly at least.

I'm not sure about Britain not having sovereignty over the North. But I imagine the deal could be that the Good Friday Agreement, which contains reference to the EU, cannot be changed without the agreement of the people of NI. Did Cameron realise this? If Clinton gets in, I can't see her being cooperative with the British doing their own thing. This all gets interesting, people weren't much bothered to turn out in the EU referendum proper, but a follow up vote might be different. For instance I'm sure there are people on this forum entitled to an overseas vote on the 15 year thing who didn't bother registering or voting.

Edit: The EU hasn't exactly been to the fore in pointing this out?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on July 20, 2016, 08:47:19 AM
My understanding of the GFA is that the North is set up in such a way that if we vote for a UI in the first instance the Irish and British Govts reverse roles. Stormont stays until such times as everyone can agree to a change.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on July 20, 2016, 04:08:19 PM
Did a quick search for 'EU' (includes Europe, European etc.) references in the GFA:

Safeguards
5. There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully in the operation of these institutions and that all sections of the community are protected, including:
(b) the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland supplementing it, which neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe, together with a Human Rights Commission;


Relations with other institutions
31. 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.


NORTH/SOUTH MINISTERIAL COUNCIL
3. The Council to meet in different formats:
(iii) in an appropriate format to consider institutional or cross-sectoral matters (including in relation to the EU) and to resolve disagreement.

17. 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.


It also states this:

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:
(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;


It looks like what Harold says above is arguable, based on the line finishing 'with regard to its status'. But the 'choice' mentioned is qualified by what follows the word 'whether', so I don't see it unfortunately.

However, given the recent announcements from the Dáil, something is going on. To call a border poll and lose it would set the cause back a long time, so they would need to be sure of a victory (unlike say David Cameron). It could just be leverage.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 20, 2016, 04:30:30 PM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on July 20, 2016, 12:00:27 AM
Apparently the two guarantors of the Agreement are the EU and the US, The Brits don't actually have sovereignty over the north, they are the de facto administrative authority and cannot exit the EU without the approval of the people of the north.

Harold,
do you have any more info about this statement? It doesn't make sense to me, I may be being obtuse
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on July 20, 2016, 05:42:37 PM
That was typed after a few scoops last night so mightn't make total sense! Basically as the south removed articles 2 & 3 the Brits are now only in charge for as long as the population of the north want them to be. Any change to the status of the north, such as Brexit, can only be decided by people of the north and if the Brits want to unilaterally make changes to the GFA, a referendum will have to be held to approve any new agreement, on both sides of the border.

Make sense?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 20, 2016, 05:54:45 PM
I think the issue is Heganboy's point in post #655

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;


means that if the British are not be partners in the EU then they are reneging on the agreement and would have to renegotiate and have another referendum.

Perhaps the wording will be
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours, notwithstanding which Britain may basically do what it likes regardless.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on July 20, 2016, 09:11:27 PM
This is all very interesting, however if it right then what I want to know is if Britain enacts article 50, would it be challenged in the courts with these bits from the GFA (and presumably something that the Scots have too)?

If this is the case then Who brings the challenge? Is it the US?EU as guarantors, the Dublin government, SF/SDLP/UU, or even.... the NI Office?

What court is it brought to? Will it ultimately end up in the European Court?

Could Britian's lack of constitution be its undoing or could we actually see the decision being made by the Queen?  :P
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 20, 2016, 09:28:26 PM
Did the GFA not confirm N Ireland remains part of the UK unless a majority agrees otherwise? Surely that means that the UK government has undisputed sovereignty over the territory,and can take it out of Europe therefore if it so desires
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 21, 2016, 09:59:05 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 20, 2016, 09:28:26 PM
Did the GFA not confirm N Ireland remains part of the UK unless a majority agrees otherwise? Surely that means that the UK government has undisputed sovereignty over the territory,and can take it out of Europe therefore if it so desires

This is true, the question is whether it has to formally renege on the GFA to do. Theresa May wanted to leave the Euro Human Rights thing, but didn't in the end as this would have overturned the GFA.

While politicians have been flying some kites in the relation to a UI poll, nobody has directly called on Britain to respect the GFA, although the British are carefully trying to imply that there is isn't a problem.

Where are the #SavetheGFA tweets and the Facebook campaigns, the demonstrations or petitions. It seems to be that respect the GFA is something a lot of people could  support, but people are sleepwalking into this.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hereiam on July 21, 2016, 10:27:53 AM
Armagh is it not the job of our politicians  to highlight this to the public and then we all get angry about it, as yet not a peep from the shinners or the stoops.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 21, 2016, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on July 21, 2016, 10:27:53 AM
Armagh is it not the job of our politicians  to highlight this to the public and then we all get angry about it, as yet not a peep from the shinners or the stoops.

Absolutely. I cannot think of topic better suited to the SDLP, that sentence about partners in the EU in the GFA was probably directly proposed by John Hume. Why is everyone so quiet?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: illdecide on July 21, 2016, 11:45:28 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2016, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on July 21, 2016, 10:27:53 AM
Armagh is it not the job of our politicians  to highlight this to the public and then we all get angry about it, as yet not a peep from the shinners or the stoops.

Absolutely. I cannot think of topic better suited to the SDLP, that sentence about partners in the EU in the GFA was probably directly proposed by John Hume. Why is everyone so quiet?

They have prob realised that eventually they'll loose out in money somewhere along the line because you can bet your ass if there was an increase in it for the Politicians then you'd hear about it...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on July 21, 2016, 04:25:03 PM
70% on a Belfast Telegraph poll voted in favour of a United ireland. I think a lot of the "pragmatic" unionists are reconsidering unity. Obviously you can't read too much into an online poll; but found it odd on a traditionally unionist paper
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on July 21, 2016, 05:50:18 PM
Quote from: general_lee on July 21, 2016, 04:25:03 PM
70% on a Belfast Telegraph poll voted in favour of a United ireland. I think a lot of the "pragmatic" unionists are reconsidering unity. Obviously you can't read too much into an online poll; but found it odd on a traditionally unionist paper

Which was roughly the same percentage that wanted a border referendum in the same online poll, leading me to think it was hijacked by nationalists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Minder on July 21, 2016, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 21, 2016, 05:50:18 PM
Quote from: general_lee on July 21, 2016, 04:25:03 PM
70% on a Belfast Telegraph poll voted in favour of a United ireland. I think a lot of the "pragmatic" unionists are reconsidering unity. Obviously you can't read too much into an online poll; but found it odd on a traditionally unionist paper

Which was roughly the same percentage that wanted a border referendum in the same online poll, leading me to think it was hijacked by nationalists.

I would say that's exactly what happened
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 22, 2016, 06:04:24 AM
so another question, if Brexit ends the GFA, what would the unionist population of the north want as a next step. Reimposition of direct rule?
What would westminster want to happen next?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: MoChara on July 22, 2016, 10:14:48 AM
Quote from: Minder on July 21, 2016, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 21, 2016, 05:50:18 PM
Quote from: general_lee on July 21, 2016, 04:25:03 PM
70% on a Belfast Telegraph poll voted in favour of a United ireland. I think a lot of the "pragmatic" unionists are reconsidering unity. Obviously you can't read too much into an online poll; but found it odd on a traditionally unionist paper

Which was roughly the same percentage that wanted a border referendum in the same online poll, leading me to think it was hijacked by nationalists.

I would say that's exactly what happened

I voted everytime they did an update, so I think I've voted at least 4 times now, if we could just get a referendum set-up in the say way we'd be laughing
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 22, 2016, 10:45:22 AM
Quote from: heganboy on July 22, 2016, 06:04:24 AM
so another question, if Brexit ends the GFA, what would the unionist population of the north want as a next step. Reimposition of direct rule?
What would westminster want to happen next?

Westminster wants to pretend that it didn't renege on the agreement and carry on as if nothing has happened.
The TUV want a minefield and electric fence at the border. The DUP range from those who favour a fence at the border, not necessarily electrified, to those who prefer to pretend that this does not affect anything. The UU probably want a new deal, special treatment for NI somehow.

Meanwhile May is coming and meeting McGuiness and Foster separately, because Foster refuses to represent anyone only her own lot.

And if NI is not going south, the British economy is
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/uk-economy-slumps-at-fastest-rate-since-financial-crisis-postbrexit-vote-34903940.html



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on July 22, 2016, 11:17:51 AM
What's Foster's official reason for not meeting May with poor Martin?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 23, 2016, 02:30:10 PM
https://twitter.com/deirdreheenan/status/756809835421859841

The quintessential view of the North from the South,as I've been trying to tell you all
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on July 24, 2016, 01:05:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 23, 2016, 02:30:10 PM
https://twitter.com/deirdreheenan/status/756809835421859841

The quintessential view of the North from the South,as I've been trying to tell you all

No Tony.

You just found someone like you. It is not representative.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 02:39:07 PM
I would contend it is representative of the majority view in the South.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 24, 2016, 03:01:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 02:39:07 PM
I would contend it is representative of the majority view in the South.

Based on?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 24, 2016, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: heganboy on July 24, 2016, 03:01:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 02:39:07 PM
I would contend it is representative of the majority view in the South.

Based on?

based on agreement with T. Fearon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 03:14:43 PM
Based on

1.No manifest demand from the people of the South for a UI

2. NI filed under "Foreign Affairs" by Dublin Governmment

3) Kenny and Martin reverting to lapdog status after admonishment by the British and Unionists for even mentioning the prospect recently,which they only did to out manoeuvre Sinn Fein in the first place
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Arthur_Friend on July 24, 2016, 08:03:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 02:39:07 PM
I would contend it is representative of the majority view in the South.

I listened to a vox pop on a southern radio station last week. Around 15 - 20 people were stopped in Sligo town and asked if they favoured a UI in the near future. Every single one favoured a UI with only one expressing concerns about loyalist violence.

Newstalk I think it was.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Huge difference between "favouring" something in a vox pop,as opposed to considering all the implications then going to a polling station to cast a vote
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on July 24, 2016, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Huge difference between "favouring" something in a vox pop,as opposed to considering all the implications then going to a polling station to cast a vote
Have you not just posted a link to a tweet of a picture of one person's letter to a newspaper? Doesn't carry much constitutional weight either, does it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:31:20 PM
I don't see any evidence to the contrary that this letter is not representative of the predominant view in the South.Where is the whisper never mind the clamour for a United Ireland, the letters to the papers demanding it,or even one Southern based political commentator calling for it? Instead NI comes under the Dublin Govt's "Foreign Affairs" Dept.If the southern populace and government were one tenth as exercised about uniting Ireland as they are about Brexit, that would be something.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on July 24, 2016, 08:46:43 PM
Until Nationalists in the North come out and vote in large numbers for Nationalist parties a UI won't be on any agenda.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on July 25, 2016, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: Rois on July 24, 2016, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Huge difference between "favouring" something in a vox pop,as opposed to considering all the implications then going to a polling station to cast a vote
Have you not just posted a link to a tweet of a picture of one person's letter to a newspaper? Doesn't carry much constitutional weight either, does it?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/mb7TSG8L2NujS/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on July 25, 2016, 08:12:06 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 24, 2016, 08:46:43 PM
Until Nationalists in the North come out and vote in large numbers for Nationalist parties a UI won't be on any agenda.
Until.nationalists stop watching unionist filth such as strictly come dancing and the great British bake off it is hard to see anything changing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 25, 2016, 10:13:16 AM
Are these shows not watched in the South too? When ever Im down there I can never access BBC NI its always BBC London.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on July 25, 2016, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: seafoid on July 25, 2016, 08:12:06 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 24, 2016, 08:46:43 PM
Until Nationalists in the North come out and vote in large numbers for Nationalist parties a UI won't be on any agenda.
Until.nationalists stop watching unionist filth such as strictly come dancing and the great British bake off it is hard to see anything changing.

What??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 25, 2016, 11:10:49 AM
I see there is a 2hour programme on RTE1 tonight celebrating Her Majesty's 90 years.Bound to be a ratings winner
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AZOffaly on July 25, 2016, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2016, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: Rois on July 24, 2016, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Huge difference between "favouring" something in a vox pop,as opposed to considering all the implications then going to a polling station to cast a vote
Have you not just posted a link to a tweet of a picture of one person's letter to a newspaper? Doesn't carry much constitutional weight either, does it?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/mb7TSG8L2NujS/giphy.gif)

That's a strike, not a home run. (If I understood the point you were making :) )
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on July 25, 2016, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2016, 11:10:49 AM
I see there is a 2hour programme on RTE1 tonight celebrating Her Majesty's 90 years.Bound to be a ratings winner
Unionis southsiders . The kilmacud clubhouse is surrounded by them
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on July 25, 2016, 03:32:53 PM
I won't be watching it anyway.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on July 25, 2016, 05:42:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 25, 2016, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2016, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: Rois on July 24, 2016, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Huge difference between "favouring" something in a vox pop,as opposed to considering all the implications then going to a polling station to cast a vote
Have you not just posted a link to a tweet of a picture of one person's letter to a newspaper? Doesn't carry much constitutional weight either, does it?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/mb7TSG8L2NujS/giphy.gif)

That's a strike, not a home run. (If I understood the point you were making :) )

It gets worse.....

I just looked up what BAMF meant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on July 25, 2016, 05:57:03 PM
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2016, 05:42:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 25, 2016, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2016, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: Rois on July 24, 2016, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Huge difference between "favouring" something in a vox pop,as opposed to considering all the implications then going to a polling station to cast a vote
Have you not just posted a link to a tweet of a picture of one person's letter to a newspaper? Doesn't carry much constitutional weight either, does it?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/mb7TSG8L2NujS/giphy.gif)

That's a strike, not a home run. (If I understood the point you were making :) )

It gets worse.....

I just looked up what BAMF meant.
AZ am I missing something with baseball?... How can you tell from that GIF whether its a stike or hit?
Americans seem to be able to tell no problem, but the only way I can tell is if the camera remains on the batter its a stirke (or ball) or if the camera pans out to where the ball is then its a hit
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 27, 2016, 01:19:32 PM
Catalonia throwing shapes too

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/27/catalonia-independence-spain-democratic-mandate
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on July 28, 2016, 09:52:31 AM
Its official Northern Ireland is more Irish than British and er so is Scotland according to the Sun

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1514370/study-show-most-of-us-are-only-37-british-unless-you-come-from-one-part-of-the-country/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on July 28, 2016, 11:11:32 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on July 28, 2016, 09:52:31 AM
Its official Northern Ireland is more Irish than British and er so is Scotland according to the Sun

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1514370/study-show-most-of-us-are-only-37-british-unless-you-come-from-one-part-of-the-country/
Just to be pedantic the original Brits were actually Celtic and cousins of the Irish, pushed of their lands by the Angles, saxons and Jutes amongst others.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on July 28, 2016, 03:10:51 PM
http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/how-did-your-town-vote-in-our-united-ireland-border-poll-34917255.html

Well Ballymena has gone Green!!! Paisley will be turning in his grave. I know its been hijacked but yer man Bill White shouldnt be so dismissive as brexit will be a big factor and there are no other up to date polls. His own NILT polls which are taken as gospel by Unionism, with all the effort to get a representative sample constantly have SDLP out polling SF ie they are next to useless
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 29, 2016, 12:13:53 PM
Another new poll showing an increase in support for a United Ireland in the 26 counties and a strong majority in favour of same.
So much for Fearon's nonsense.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on July 29, 2016, 12:47:21 PM
Tick tock
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on July 29, 2016, 01:47:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 29, 2016, 12:13:53 PM
Another new poll showing an increase in support for a United Ireland in the 26 counties and a strong majority in favour of same.
So much for Fearon's nonsense.

Astounding results, considering it is from a newspaper that publishes articles from Nelson McCausland, Lindy McDowell and Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Portadown?!!!
Lisburn?!!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 29, 2016, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: Orior on July 29, 2016, 01:47:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 29, 2016, 12:13:53 PM
Another new poll showing an increase in support for a United Ireland in the 26 counties and a strong majority in favour of same.
So much for Fearon's nonsense.

Astounding results, considering it is from a newspaper that publishes articles from Nelson McCausland, Lindy McDowell and Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Portadown?!!!
Lisburn?!!!

I think you are confusing the 26 county poll and the Belfast Telegraph one, although both show the same thing! The first is more reliable though.
Carrickfergus remains true blue, however.  I suggest we just give it to Scotland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AZOffaly on July 29, 2016, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on July 25, 2016, 05:57:03 PM
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2016, 05:42:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 25, 2016, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2016, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: Rois on July 24, 2016, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Huge difference between "favouring" something in a vox pop,as opposed to considering all the implications then going to a polling station to cast a vote
Have you not just posted a link to a tweet of a picture of one person's letter to a newspaper? Doesn't carry much constitutional weight either, does it?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/mb7TSG8L2NujS/giphy.gif)

That's a strike, not a home run. (If I understood the point you were making :) )

It gets worse.....

I just looked up what BAMF meant.
AZ am I missing something with baseball?... How can you tell from that GIF whether its a stike or hit?
Americans seem to be able to tell no problem, but the only way I can tell is if the camera remains on the batter its a stirke (or ball) or if the camera pans out to where the ball is then its a hit

Catchers reaction. You can see he brings his throwing hand to the mitt, and stands up straight away, looking back at the pitcher. If it was a hit, or a home run, his head would be following the ball, and there'd be no movement to the mitt.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on July 29, 2016, 09:17:17 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 29, 2016, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on July 25, 2016, 05:57:03 PM
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2016, 05:42:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 25, 2016, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on July 25, 2016, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: Rois on July 24, 2016, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Huge difference between "favouring" something in a vox pop,as opposed to considering all the implications then going to a polling station to cast a vote
Have you not just posted a link to a tweet of a picture of one person's letter to a newspaper? Doesn't carry much constitutional weight either, does it?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/mb7TSG8L2NujS/giphy.gif)

That's a strike, not a home run. (If I understood the point you were making :) )

It gets worse.....

I just looked up what BAMF meant.
AZ am I missing something with baseball?... How can you tell from that GIF whether its a stike or hit?
Americans seem to be able to tell no problem, but the only way I can tell is if the camera remains on the batter its a stirke (or ball) or if the camera pans out to where the ball is then its a hit

Catchers reaction. You can see he brings his throwing hand to the mitt, and stands up straight away, looking back at the pitcher. If it was a hit, or a home run, his head would be following the ball, and there'd be no movement to the mitt.

ahhhh comprendo ahora, gracias
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on July 30, 2016, 11:28:44 PM
Binary polls are meaningless.If the people of the 26 counties ponder the cost (to them) of unity with the North and the cultural accommodation and let's face it,effectively taking on from the British the management of a centuries old tribal fight,manifested in parades disputes etc,they will not be rushing to polling stations to vote for this option.A meaningless vox pop is exactly that...meaningless
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on July 31, 2016, 12:29:35 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 30, 2016, 11:28:44 PM
Binary polls are meaningless.If the people of the 26 counties ponder the cost (to them) of unity with the North and the cultural accommodation and let's face it,effectively taking on from the British the management of a centuries old tribal fight,manifested in parades disputes etc,they will not be rushing to polling stations to vote for this option.A meaningless vox pop is exactly that...meaningless
Again I ask - less meaningful than a url link to a tweet of a picture of a letter from an individual to a newspaper?
Is a referendum not usually a binary question? If it is, then how can a binary poll be totally meaningless when a referendum asking the same binary question can change a country's future a la Brexit referendum?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on August 01, 2016, 02:46:54 AM
The Tories wouldn't be for Irish unity would they? Till they're voted out there's no chance of a poll.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 01, 2016, 10:40:44 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 01, 2016, 02:46:54 AM
The Tories wouldn't be for Irish unity would they? Till they're voted out there's no chance of a poll.

Arguably, the need to call a poll could be legally challenged if there was evidence of the need to call a poll, for instance if the votes for parties designated unionist fell below those designated nationalist or even if opinion polls showed a trend on this issue. 

However, the Good Friday Agreement and associated Northern Ireland Act also contain reference to the EU, so the current legal challenge will illustrate the extent to which these things can be reviewed by courts
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Lar Naparka on August 02, 2016, 11:10:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2016, 06:41:29 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 26, 2016, 06:15:42 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.
Bang on Ross, you've a way with words! ;D
I think it's fair to say that most people down on the South, while not actively opposing any form of UI, would be slow to sign up for a union without knowing in detail what they would be letting themselves in for.
I believe that it is also fair to say that a feeling of goodwill towards our northern neighbours was widespread at the time of the GFA and in the period leading up to it.
Thereafter, most down here  expected religious and political tensions to die down and that some sort of peaceful co-existence would replace the eternal bickering and flag waving and shit-stirring that has been the norm for centuries.
We've been through almost a full decade of hardship, paying the debts of others and I know there are very few that want to continue shelling out money in order to keep the basket case economy up north ticking over.
The fear of the unknown is almost palpable, especially the probability that there will be a paramilitary backlash from Loyalists unwilling to accept Rome Rule as they see it.
And to cap it all, nobody who is pushing for a UI right here and now, takes the views of the non-nationals into account.  Bear in mind that they make up a significant proportion of the Republic's electorate now.
I don't think many of them would welcome the prospect of a bag of snarling cats being dumped upon us all.




(BTW, I'm in favour of a UI of some sort, which isn't the view of the majority of people I've discussed this matter with.)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 02, 2016, 11:47:42 AM
Meanwhile it would help if SF and SDLP could get Nationalists out voting in big numbers as the Brit Sec of State won't have a "border poll" until the perceived Nationalist vote gets to around the same level as the Unionist vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 02, 2016, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 02, 2016, 11:47:42 AM
Meanwhile it would help if SF and SDLP could get Nationalists out voting in big numbers as the Brit Sec of State won't have a "border poll" until the perceived Nationalist vote gets to around the same level as the Unionist vote.

The problem, as I see it, is that the requirements for a poll do not seem to require a plan and only in England will people vote for something without the least clue how it will work. This was one of the many aspects of the GFA that was a  bit slack. If they is some sort of renegotiation required now with Brexit then some of these issues should be attended to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 06:36:51 PM
I see senior Dáil Minister and potential future Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has condemned those of using the Brexit result as an excuse for a "Land Grab".If this does not signify the predominant mindset of those in the freestate,i.e. The North is British and legitimately so,I do not know what does.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 22, 2016, 07:39:13 PM
Read the oul Good Friday Agreement which was accepted by the vast majority of people in Ireland (all of it).
Not quite sure what Varadkar means by land grab.
The future All Ireland State won't be grabbing anyone's land.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on August 22, 2016, 08:00:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 06:36:51 PM
I see senior Dáil Minister and potential future Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has condemned those of using the Brexit result as an excuse for a "Land Grab".If this does not signify the predominant mindset of those in the freestate,i.e. The North is British and legitimately so,I do not know what does.

Needless to say he won't be questioned about this, same as everything...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 22, 2016, 08:08:48 PM
As usual Tony is twisting things to suit his own Unionist views.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/leo-varadkar-warns-against-post-brexit-land-grab-417035.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/leo-varadkar-warns-against-post-brexit-land-grab-417035.html)

Varadkar also said this:

"Mr Varadkar said he does want to see a united Ireland in the future."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 08:50:09 PM
The use of the term "Land Grab" is just about the most insulting term in the lexicon as far as those who aspire to a United Ireland are concerned.It says it all about the mindset of free state politicians,they view the North as an entirely different country to the real Ireland which in their tiny minds starts at Dundalk
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on August 22, 2016, 08:59:59 PM
What about Cooley?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on August 22, 2016, 09:05:42 PM
Bull
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 22, 2016, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 08:50:09 PM
The use of the term "Land Grab" is just about the most insulting term in the lexicon as far as those who aspire to a United Ireland are concerned.It says it all about the mindset of free state politicians,they view the North as an entirely different country to the real Ireland which in their tiny minds starts at Dundalk

Just come out of that closet and admit your Unionism.  ;D

Varadkar said he wanted to see a United Ireland, yet you keep ignoring that so you can pretend to be offended. Anyone can see Varadkar is merely playing petty politics with the Shinners. Anyone except you that is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 09:46:00 PM
Uniting Ireland is now a land grab according to a potential Taoiseach.Shame
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 22, 2016, 10:19:05 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 09:46:00 PM
Uniting Ireland is now a land grab according to a potential Taoiseach.Shame

Why does it bother you, who has nothing in common with the people in the 26 counties (according to yourself).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 11:00:19 PM
It just bemuses me that so many people hanker over Irish Unity when it is plain that Dublin Governments,never mind Unionists,don't want it.Why waste your life in this way?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on August 22, 2016, 11:03:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 11:00:19 PM
It just bemuses me that so many people hanker over Irish Unity when it is plain that Dublin Governments,never mind Unionists,don't want it.

Tony, one thing to point out, unlike the unionists, Dublin governments change...
QuoteWhy waste your life in this way?
this from the spurs fan
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 22, 2016, 11:10:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 22, 2016, 11:00:19 PM
It just bemuses me that so many people hanker over Irish Unity when it is plain that Dublin Governments,never mind Unionists,don't want it.Why waste your life in this way?

Why do you persist in telling this lie over and over? It is YOU who doesn't want Irish Unity. Stop pretending it is everybody else.

Why waste your life in this way?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on August 22, 2016, 11:47:52 PM
Muppet,
did I see recently that leaders of the three largest parties in the Dail all spoke out for Irish unity?

Fearon is the Trump of the board at this point, did you see the prize I won, it was great, great, best prize ever

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/many-people-are-vmgfah.jpg)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 22, 2016, 11:54:58 PM
Quote from: heganboy on August 22, 2016, 11:47:52 PM
Muppet,
did I see recently that leaders of the three largest parties in the Dail all spoke out for Irish unity?

All the parties are pro-United Ireland. They all support the GFA and the even least vocal on the issue, Fine Gael, have as their policy Unity by Consent. But it is still Unity.

Fearon is against Unity and is trying to highlight people in the 26 he thinks agree with him, pretending to be outraged. But as usual he doesn't do his homework or worse, he posts deliberately misleading statements. Note how he rarely provides a link for anyone to check his claims.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on August 23, 2016, 11:48:41 AM
This is like a rerun of the Celtic thread where Tony twists facts and ignores reality to suit his own warped view of the issue. boring at this stage and not exactly a rational discussion of the subject. Tony is also a self confessed OWCer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 06:33:07 PM
Excuse me,but Land Grab has only one meaning,invading or taking over a piece of land to which there is no right to own.There is no ambiguity with that phrase.The free state establishment does not perceive it has any right to own the Northern part of this island.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 23, 2016, 06:41:13 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 06:33:07 PM
Excuse me,but Land Grab has only one meaning,invading or taking over a piece of land to which there is no right to own.There is no ambiguity with that phrase.The free state establishment does not perceive it has any right to own the Northern part of this island.

Land grab

Examples
noun
1.
the seizing of land by a nation, state, or organization, especially illegally, underhandedly, or unfairly.
[my emphasis]

Especially

adverb
1.
particularly; exceptionally; markedly:
Be especially watchful.




NB: Especially does not mean 'always' or 'exclusively'.




Why do you keep ignoring this statement: Mr Varadkar said he does want to see a united Ireland in the future.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 06:49:27 PM
Ffs SF used to criticise Charlie Haughey for similar "verbal republicanism" ie saying something but doing absolutely nothing to achieve it.

Seeking out the electorate's views on a UI in the aftermath of a Brexit,North and South is an entirely reasonable proposition but Vardy was really attempting to dampen down expectations.

You don't see true nationalists in other countries like Nicola Sturgeon warning people about "land grabbing" their own land.That's the real difference.

It is my firm conviction that one of the main reasons the free state feared a Brexit was that it would be ultimately left lumbered with the North
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 23, 2016, 07:04:30 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 06:49:27 PM
Ffs SF used to criticise Charlie Haughey for similar "verbal republicanism" ie saying something but doing absolutely nothing to achieve it.

Seeking out the electorate's views on a UI in the aftermath of a Brexit,North and South is an entirely reasonable proposition but Vardy was really attempting to dampen down expectations.

You don't see true nationalists in other countries like Nicola Sturgeon warning people about "land grabbing" their own land.That's the real difference.

It is my firm conviction that one of the main reasons the free state feared a Brexit was that it would be ultimately left lumbered with the North

You capitalise 'Brexit' but insult us all with the derogatory, non-capitalised, 'free state' and equally insulting 'lumbered with the North'.

You are appalled at the (entirely self inflicted) demise of the standing of the Catholic church in the 26, so you bravely insult us and blame us for all of your woes.

You don't have firm convictions Tony. You would drop family members, your Nationalist views and livelihood in an instant, if you thought for a second God would see you as better than everyone else for doing so.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 07:20:59 PM
I am simply referring to the grotesque view of the Free State (happy now?) establishment that asserting it's natural and moral right to sovereignty over all of Ireland is now akin to a Land Grab.Compare this grotesque view with that of Scots Nationalists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: easytiger95 on August 23, 2016, 07:27:34 PM
Poor Tony - driven mad by the remorselessness of his own logic
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 23, 2016, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 07:20:59 PM
I am simply referring to the grotesque view of the Free State (happy now?) establishment that asserting it's natural and moral right to sovereignty over all of Ireland is now akin to a Land Grab.Compare this grotesque view with that of Scots Nationalists.

You are referring to one comment, by one minister, who also said he wished to see a United Ireland - which you keep ignoring.

What is truly grotesque is your cowardice in hiding your blatant unionism and blaming everyone else for it.

And there is no such place as the Free State.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ashman on August 23, 2016, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 07:20:59 PM
I am simply referring to the grotesque view of the Free State (happy now?) establishment that asserting it's natural and moral right to sovereignty over all of Ireland is now akin to a Land Grab.Compare this grotesque view with that of Scots Nationalists.

Scottish nationalists could not convince enough of their population to vote for independence.

Your are spouting some 5hite.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 23, 2016, 08:22:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 23, 2016, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 07:20:59 PM
I am simply referring to the grotesque view of the Free State (happy now?) establishment that asserting it's natural and moral right to sovereignty over all of Ireland is now akin to a Land Grab.Compare this grotesque view with that of Scots Nationalists.

You are referring to one comment, by one minister, who also said he wished to see a United Ireland - which you keep ignoring.

What is truly grotesque is your cowardice in hiding your blatant unionism and blaming everyone else for it.

And there is no such place as the Free State.
As the 26 Co Government doesn't get any votes in the 6Cos and all parties ( and most of the Irish people) accept the Good Friday Agreement - has our Govt any moral or natural right to Sovereignty over said 6 Cos?
Does Sovereignty not now reside in the hands of the registered voters of the 6 Cos??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 08:32:37 PM
Yes it does,and the people of the 26 counties endorsed it in large numbers,and on occasions like Brexit which slightly opens the door to a Unitec Ireland Senior Free State Ministers slam the notion down and present it now as a "land grab"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 23, 2016, 08:37:39 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 08:32:37 PM
Yes it does,and the people of the 26 counties endorsed it in large numbers,and on occasions like Brexit which slightly opens the door to a Unitec Ireland Senior Free State Ministers slam the notion down and present it now as a "land grab"

There is no Irishman more against Irish Unity than you. Stop flying silly kites.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 08:58:43 PM
I am in favour of it,but it's never going to happen when senior Dublin Ministers view it as a land grab
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 23, 2016, 09:18:00 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 08:58:43 PM
I am in favour of it,but it's never going to happen when senior Dublin Ministers view it as a land grab

You are pretending to be in favour of it, and then highlighting silly reasons why (you hope) it won't happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 23, 2016, 09:59:58 PM
It won't happen because free state ministers regard it as a Land Grab
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 23, 2016, 11:26:52 PM
When the voters of the 6 Cos vote to leave yUK and join an All Ireland State and the voters of the 26 vote for an All Ireland State then Tony, Govt in Dublin and everyone else will have to get on with implementing it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 24, 2016, 07:20:09 AM
The GFA agreement says that in the event of a referendum in favour of an All Ireland state,both governments will be duty bound to consider the result and determine the best way forward.That is far from a commitment to implementing the result by delivering a United Ireland.This position was agreed by the FF led Irish Government at the time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 26, 2016, 03:32:47 PM
Would the people in the 6 counties give up their health service and put up with the waiting lists in the South?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/400000-people-on-hospital-waiting-lists-in-northern-ireland-lives-being-lost-warns-mla-34996673.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on August 26, 2016, 07:18:00 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2016, 03:32:47 PM
Would the people in the 6 counties give up their health service and put up with the waiting lists in the South?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/400000-people-on-hospital-waiting-lists-in-northern-ireland-lives-being-lost-warns-mla-34996673.html

20% of the population is on waiting lists!

Despite all the complaining in the 26, and most of it is justified, I hear from family that the UK Health System is far worse.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on August 26, 2016, 07:49:42 PM
The mistake most freestaers make and indeed too many on both sides in the North replicate is thinking there is an economic argument to win over unionists or nationalists to accepting the union or re unification.

Unionism and Nationalism is overwhelmingly emotionally driven,I would have been one of the few to have escaped this irrational mindset,and not amenable to rational argument or indeed the experience of history,which irrefutably shows that unionists and nationalists respectively have been continually shafted by London and Dublin,neither of whom are worthy of allegiance from anyone in the North of Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 26, 2016, 08:22:03 PM
Yes Tony ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 08:27:04 PM
I see in today's Irish News only 1/3 of the freestate electorate would vote in favour of a United Ireland if it meant tax rises. As tax rises would be inevitable to fund a United Ireland surely that finally puts paid to any prospect of it,even if unionists could be persuaded.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 19, 2016, 09:12:22 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 08:27:04 PM
I see in today's Irish News only 1/3 of the freestate electorate would vote in favour of a United Ireland if it meant tax rises. As tax rises would be inevitable to fund a United Ireland surely that finally puts paid to any prospect of it,even if unionists could be persuaded.

The 6 counties will just have to grow up and pay its own way
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on September 19, 2016, 10:11:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 08:27:04 PM
I see in today's Irish News only 1/3 of the freestate electorate would vote in favour of a United Ireland if it meant tax rises. As tax rises would be inevitable to fund a United Ireland surely that finally puts paid to any prospect of it,even if unionists could be persuaded.

The 36 billion euro dividend of reunification just might have an affect on that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 10:13:15 PM
Where is that coming from? Is that a big piece of pie in the sky I see?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on September 20, 2016, 01:39:37 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 10:13:15 PM
Where is that coming from? Is that a big piece of pie in the sky I see?

I think they used the £26m from the Northern Bank and have been following your betting tips assiduously.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 20, 2016, 03:36:24 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on September 20, 2016, 01:39:37 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 10:13:15 PM
Where is that coming from? Is that a big piece of pie in the sky I see?

I think they used the £26m from the Northern Bank and have been following your betting tips assiduously.

I hope they didn't lump on Tír na nÓg against Cross.  :P
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on September 20, 2016, 05:11:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 10:13:15 PM
Where is that coming from? Is that a big piece of pie in the sky I see?

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

I have to say Tony, that I'd believe that rather than your 'pie in the sky' analysis which undoubtedly is the result of a postgraduate degree in economics from the LSE.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Minder on September 20, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on September 20, 2016, 05:11:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 10:13:15 PM
Where is that coming from? Is that a big piece of pie in the sky I see?

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

I have to say Tony, that I'd believe that rather than your 'pie in the sky' analysis which undoubtedly is the result of a postgraduate degree in economics from the LSE.

Some context on that "study", basically Sinn Fein commissioned

http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 20, 2016, 08:10:14 PM
Quote from: Minder on September 20, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on September 20, 2016, 05:11:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2016, 10:13:15 PM
Where is that coming from? Is that a big piece of pie in the sky I see?

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

I have to say Tony, that I'd believe that rather than your 'pie in the sky' analysis which undoubtedly is the result of a postgraduate degree in economics from the LSE.

Some context on that "study", basically Sinn Fein commissioned

http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/

The British government produce reports abut NI all the time, are they necessarily biased because of who asked for them?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on September 21, 2016, 08:25:56 PM
What downside analysis did they undertake?
What analysis was undertaken of the likelihood of each of the scenarios materialising? And what sensitivity analysis of the relative failures of each scenario to materialaise?
Will be interesting to see how the report survives the peer-review process.

What long term analysis was undertaken? e.g, what happens after the short term benefit of joining a weak euro washes through?

The report contains a series of assumptions that can basically be summarised as "if all the obstacles went away and there were no new problems would the outcome be good?"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 21, 2016, 10:19:50 PM
This report is not a complete picture, but it is a start, and a welcome increase on the usual standard of comment on such things.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on September 24, 2016, 01:57:36 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 21, 2016, 10:19:50 PM
This report is not a complete picture, but it is a start, and a welcome increase on the usual standard of comment on such things.

You might welcome the report but its not a start or an increase in any standard.

Its laughably embarrassing. It will be out there for a while and we can see how the "peer review" process treats it. My guess it will be ignored as serious economists will not consider it worthy of comment never mind serious analysis
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 26, 2016, 09:25:44 PM
One wonders how long NI will be allowed spend much more than outer parts of England in the current political climate.
(http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SOS-1.png)

(http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SOS-2.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 29, 2016, 01:37:07 PM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on July 20, 2016, 12:00:27 AM
Was speaking with one of the negotiators of the GFA earlier, he stated that the DUP haven't a clue what they've let themselves in for. Apparently the two guarantors of the Agreement are the EU and the US, The Brits don't actually have sovereignty over the north, they are the de facto administrative authority and cannot exit the EU without the approval of the people of the north. Any changes to the agreement will more than likely require a referendum probably both sides of the border. Mike Nesbitt has copped on to this, Arlene not yet, publicly at least.

Harold, after the court case this week  there is no evidence that this is true. The people who negotiated the GFA may have believed that the two guarantors of the Agreement are the EU and the US, but they actually didn't write any of this into the agreement itself. A real shortfall of the GFA was that it did not look to the future, it did not actually lock the British into anything nor did it provide for any review mechanism. There were no cross border bodies of any use set up, nor was any citizen right to equality of treatment cross border established. all the time was taken up arguing about explosives and the like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on October 29, 2016, 08:21:09 PM
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:
(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;



All of the UK was entitled to vote on Brexit. Fine. But the GFA enshrines the right of the people of the 6 counties to determine, separately, their own relationship with both countries.

The last vote was a UK vote on Brexit. Now the 6 counties should have a new GFA agreement presented to them as the relationship with either the UK or the 26 (or both) will change. The key though is to insist on talks and not to go to court to force a ruling that you might not like. The EU has some useful leverage here and a Clinton in the White House might also help.

We should seek an agreement that offers an attractive way for the 6 counties to remain in the EU.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on November 28, 2016, 04:24:20 PM
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2016/Towards-a-United-Ireland.pdf

Something for those saying SF need to start talking more about it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on November 28, 2016, 04:46:55 PM
Quote from: AQMP on November 28, 2016, 04:32:34 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on November 28, 2016, 04:24:20 PM
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2016/Towards-a-United-Ireland.pdf

Something for those saying SF need to start talking more about it.

A move in the right direction - the journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step and this is probably it.


Sheds a bit of light on the British subvention here too which can only be a good thing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 29, 2016, 10:39:36 PM
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2016/1129/835162-gaa-may-limit-future-use-of-irish-flag-and-anthem/

GAA open to change on future use of Irish flag and national anthem
Updated / Nov. 29, 2016 16:22


The national anthem is played ahead of all Championship games
The GAA president has said that the association would be open to change in relation to the use of Amhrán na bhFiann and the Irish flag in anticipation of potential new post-Brexit agreements in Ireland.
Aogán Ó Fearghail believes that the association will adapt as necessary to any future agreements on the island of Ireland, predicting that Brexit will inevitably affect the GAA.

"If the GAA is serious about contributing to this conversation, it might look at its own official guide where it talks about membership of the GAA being an expression of a people's preference for native ways as opposed to imported ones." - Paul Rouse
Speaking in the UAE on the GAA/GPA Football All Stars tour, Ó Fearghail said: "There might well be political re-alignments on the island of Ireland and if there are then, the GAA, just as it did when Nickey Brennan was president at the time and before him Sean McCague, they welcomed the Anglo-Irish agreement. Every successive president has done that. I've done that.
"You certainly cannot look at these issues in advance of an agreement, that's for sure.
"The flag and the anthem means a lot to the GAA and will continue to do so, but who knows in the future? In the future, if there are different agreements in place for the whole of Ireland, of course the GAA would be inclusive in that."
"Brexit is going to affect the GAA the same as it's going to affect everyone else and it does cause concerns. In the future if there are new agreements and new arrangements we'd be open-minded about things like flags and anthems but not in advance of agreements."
However, GAA historian Paul Rouse believes that the GAA president is talking very much in a hypothetical sense, stating that Ó Fearghail has taken several leaps into the future, regarding the issue.


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on November 29, 2016, 11:41:18 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on November 28, 2016, 04:24:20 PM
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2016/Towards-a-United-Ireland.pdf

Something for those saying SF need to start talking more about it.

I think a united Ireland is inevitable at some point and it has only been accelerated by the events of 2016. This document is a positive step which shows that at least there is a framework for a coherent plan being worked upon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 30, 2016, 12:11:26 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2016, 03:32:47 PM
Would the people in the 6 counties give up their health service and put up with the waiting lists in the South?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/400000-people-on-hospital-waiting-lists-in-northern-ireland-lives-being-lost-warns-mla-34996673.html
The NHS will no longer be affordable if Brexit goes ahead.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 30, 2016, 12:16:59 AM
Unity is Better for Irish Sport

Irish teams are stronger and better when they are all-Ireland teams. All-Ireland rugby teams have won Grand Slams and Triple Crowns, boxers have had international successes, Irish golfers are leading the way in that sport. As an all-Ireland organisation, the GAA has been unmatched by any other amateur sports organisation.
Support for an all-island soccer team is growing. It makes no sense to have two 'national' teams competing on the international stage and splitting the talent pool that exists. We are stronger, better and more successful together. Unity would generate more income for sports clubs and more opportunities for talented players.

Dead right
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 30, 2016, 12:16:19 PM
Nice to see the Shinners running with most of my ideas from this forum over the years ;)
Any chance of an oul' "Community Worker" job lads?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on November 30, 2016, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 30, 2016, 12:16:59 AM
Unity is Better for Irish Sport

Irish teams are stronger and better when they are all-Ireland teams. All-Ireland rugby teams have won Grand Slams and Triple Crowns, boxers have had international successes, Irish golfers are leading the way in that sport. As an all-Ireland organisation, the GAA has been unmatched by any other amateur sports organisation.
Support for an all-island soccer team is growing. It makes no sense to have two 'national' teams competing on the international stage and splitting the talent pool that exists. We are stronger, better and more successful together. Unity would generate more income for sports clubs and more opportunities for talented players.

Dead right
Let it go man, just embrace the GAWA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38164449
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 01, 2016, 10:29:58 AM
Quote from: michaelg on November 30, 2016, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 30, 2016, 12:16:59 AM
Unity is Better for Irish Sport

Irish teams are stronger and better when they are all-Ireland teams. All-Ireland rugby teams have won Grand Slams and Triple Crowns, boxers have had international successes, Irish golfers are leading the way in that sport. As an all-Ireland organisation, the GAA has been unmatched by any other amateur sports organisation.
Support for an all-island soccer team is growing. It makes no sense to have two 'national' teams competing on the international stage and splitting the talent pool that exists. We are stronger, better and more successful together. Unity would generate more income for sports clubs and more opportunities for talented players.

Dead right
Let it go man, just embrace the GAWA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38164449
Absolutely no interest in a team that represents an organisation as biased and sectarian as the IFA.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 01, 2016, 10:58:49 AM
Quote from: michaelg on November 30, 2016, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 30, 2016, 12:16:59 AM
Unity is Better for Irish Sport

Irish teams are stronger and better when they are all-Ireland teams. All-Ireland rugby teams have won Grand Slams and Triple Crowns, boxers have had international successes, Irish golfers are leading the way in that sport. As an all-Ireland organisation, the GAA has been unmatched by any other amateur sports organisation.
Support for an all-island soccer team is growing. It makes no sense to have two 'national' teams competing on the international stage and splitting the talent pool that exists. We are stronger, better and more successful together. Unity would generate more income for sports clubs and more opportunities for talented players.

Dead right
Let it go man, just embrace the GAWA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38164449

2 finals in 60 years

tsk tsk

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on December 01, 2016, 05:07:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 01, 2016, 10:58:49 AM
Quote from: michaelg on November 30, 2016, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 30, 2016, 12:16:59 AM
Unity is Better for Irish Sport

Irish teams are stronger and better when they are all-Ireland teams. All-Ireland rugby teams have won Grand Slams and Triple Crowns, boxers have had international successes, Irish golfers are leading the way in that sport. As an all-Ireland organisation, the GAA has been unmatched by any other amateur sports organisation.
Support for an all-island soccer team is growing. It makes no sense to have two 'national' teams competing on the international stage and splitting the talent pool that exists. We are stronger, better and more successful together. Unity would generate more income for sports clubs and more opportunities for talented players.

Dead right
Let it go man, just embrace the GAWA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38164449

2 finals in 60 years

tsk tsk
What finals  would those be?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 01, 2016, 05:54:27 PM
Hopefully the sectarian 6 county statelet and its ridiculous team will not be around for too many more finals.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 04, 2016, 07:45:04 PM
Do catholic and protestant schools in NI use the same history books? How is the unionist identity developed in kids? Is it possible to foist that on catholics?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 04, 2016, 08:50:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 04, 2016, 07:45:04 PM
Do catholic and protestant schools in NI use the same history books? How is the unionist identity developed in kids? Is it possible to foist that on catholics?

Can't comment on anything below GCSE, but for GCSE and A-Level, there about 5 options of periods and themes to study so I would imagine that while most Catholic schools study things like the Fenians, 1916 etc for A-Level, the protestant schools choose to study one of the other options.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 17, 2016, 05:57:34 PM
I see the free state Satirical annual,Phoenix,in a vain attempt to be funny,lists its shortest books of the year, one of which is "The great gay cake bake off- Archers Bakery" Archers??? I told you,as far as the free state is concerned the North might as well be Outer Mongolia
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: muppet on December 17, 2016, 06:09:20 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 17, 2016, 05:57:34 PM
I see the free state Satirical annual,Phoenix,in a vain attempt to be funny,lists its shortest books of the year, one of which is "The great gay cake bake off- Archers Bakery" Archers??? I told you,as far as the free state is concerned the North might as well be Outer Mongolia

Were there any books from Outer Mongolia on the list?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 17, 2016, 06:09:42 PM
Sometimes the people of the former Irish Free State wish some of ye would eff off to Mongolia ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hardy on December 17, 2016, 08:37:31 PM
Mongolia has enough problems.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on December 28, 2016, 11:58:23 PM
Kevin Meagher, Shaun Woodward's former advisor, has a book out, this piece was published in the irish times today here


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/why-reunified-ireland-offers-best-outcome-for-north-s-future-1.2918645 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/why-reunified-ireland-offers-best-outcome-for-north-s-future-1.2918645)
the title of the book?


A United Ireland: Why Unification is Inevitable and How It Will Come About


QuoteArlene Foster survived a vote of no confidence at the Northern Ireland Assembly before Christmas. The BBC's Ten O'Clock News decided to cover the matter at 10.22pm in a 20-second report in a general round-up of the day's news.
Granted, it was the same day as the attack on a Berlin Christmas market and the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey, but one could easily argue that the matter was slightly more important than the BBC decided.
Surely it deserved a bit more attention? For those of us who follow these things, it is, however, just part of a familiar pattern. Northern Ireland barely registers on the British psyche. The truth is we're just not that into the place.
This may surprise a few on this side of the Irish Sea. But the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not an arrangement of equals (as the billing suggests). "The province" is an unloved and little-understood appendage.
It's there on British weather maps (cut off by the Irish Sea, and as near to the "mainland" as France is) but there is little affinity with the place. It's a far-away land of which we know, and, well, care little.
Brits still struggle to understand why the IRA wanted to blow up our cities and look on in astonishment as men in orange sashes and bowler hats insist on marching down streets where they are not wanted. That is, if we think of them at all.
In reality, Northern Ireland has always had a sort of "associate" status. From partition onwards, it was left alone to do its own thing. Of course, this was the seminal reason for the Troubles.
British disinterest following partition allowed problems to fester.
Decades of British indifference was rooted in a simple assumption: a process of attrition following partition would eventually lead to Irish unity and the problem would resolve itself. Northern Ireland was simply not meant to last this long. Only it has.
But for how much longer? Britain exhibits a maddening contrariness. Successive generations of British politicians have longed to jettison Northern Ireland, but at critical points they lacked the will and the choreography to do so.
Now things are changed. Changed utterly, in fact. The turn of the historical wheel presents new opportunities. It's symbolic that events of the first World War have now passed from personal lived experience to historical memory.
Small nations
There is no one alive on the unionist side to yell "Traitor!" at backsliding Westminster politicians with any moral purchase, a point clouded still further by the recognition that soldiers from the rest of Ireland perished for a very different promise, the rights of small nations to independence.
Similarly, if Queen Elizabeth could visit Ireland in 2011 and was willing to lay a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance to those who died in the cause of Irish freedom, how can unionists gainsay closer co-operation between our countries?
In fact, beyond the unionist tribe, is anyone in British politics bothered about maintaining the link to Northern Ireland? Back in 2014, English MPs and campaigners were falling over themselves to persuade wavering Scots to stay in the union, during the independence referendum.

Ties of affection and the sense that England, Wales and Scotland were genuinely "better together" meant MPs literally changed their holiday plans to make the trip north. Moreover, Scotland was a prize worth keeping hold of, a valuable source of oil wealth and a base for the UK's nuclear submarines. Extricating the affairs of Scotland from the rest of Britain would be a fiendish task.
It is improbable – actually, it's almost inconceivable – that anything similar would happen if it was Northern Ireland on the table, as, indeed one day it will be. I struggle to imagine – a few Conservative "ultras" apart – who would make the trip across the Irish Sea to trudge the highways of North Antrim and the byways of Derry City to persuade the people there to remain in the UK.
When Tory Northern Ireland secretary Peter Brooke famously said Britain had "no selfish strategic or economic interest" in keeping Northern Ireland, he was not kidding. He also said there would need to be a majority that wanted a change and the subsequent Belfast Agreement does indeed copper-fasten the principle of consent, but just think about that. There is no first principles case coming from anyone in British politics about why Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK.


The subtext is not subtle: Northern Ireland is parked in an ante-chamber. A British government is prepared to offload the place as soon as it thinks it can get away with doing so. And it would, make no mistake. Probably with an audible sigh of relief. As British home secretary Reginald Maudling put it when he was leaving Belfast after closing Stormont and ushering in direct rule from Whitehall, "For God's sake, bring me a large Scotch. What a bloody awful country." By and large, he spoke for every British minister that followed him.
And short of Britain discovering gold in the river Bann, there is absolutely no economic reason to prevent Irish unity from occurring. Northern Ireland's best bet, economically, is to join with the South and align its economy to benefit from the Republic's strong record of attracting foreign direct investment. Theoretically, the benefits are clear: the Border is an artificial division and the respective populations are small enough and complementary enough to make uniting their economic efforts a common-sense solution. At present, Northern Ireland and the Republic are the only dinner guests positioned at opposite ends of a banqueting table.



This point was forensically made in a major report on the economics of Irish unity by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia in a study modelling the effects of Irish reunification last year.
His assessment was that "borders matter" and that the economies of both jurisdictions on the island are interlinked and interdependent, but they are not aligned "differ[ing] enormously in terms of structure, output and growth". A single, unified approach would boost an all-Ireland economy by €36 billion during the first eight years, according to his modelling.
Britain's role in all this should be to promise to maintain a significant financial contribution over a number of years until both jurisdictions are sufficiently harmonised.

Will the British people stand for that? They currently ladle £10 billion a year on the place. Any prospect of drawing down that figure even over a period of years, is a good deal. And it is in Britain's long-term interest to make Irish unity work. Relations between these isles are the best they have ever been.
Of course, it is easy to pontificate about what the Irish people should do from my side of the Irish Sea. The whole idea of Irish reunification, in the parlance of eBay, needs the buyer to be willing to collect. If the British stand accused of hypocrisy over Northern Ireland, so, too, do the southern Irish.
A deafening silence is observed here as well. Yet opinion polls show clear majorities favouring reunification, depending on how the question is phrased. Asked if they want it immediately, fewer Irish voters are dead-set on the idea. But if the issue is framed in the slightly longer term, support rises to roughly two-thirds. So why are Irish politicians traditionally reluctant to make the case, beyond the odd rhetorical genuflection?


Clearly, a majority in the North currently favours the status quo. But we are two to three years away from a crisis as Northern Ireland comes to terms with losing billions of pounds in funding, courtesy of the UK's vote to leave the European Union, expected in spring 2019. Historically, for unionists, Irish unity represented an unwelcome solution to an invisible problem.
Not anymore. Irish unity now represents an immediate remedy to a pressing concern. That lost money would reappear if the Border didn't exist. As they ponder this trade-off, will unionist farmers find themselves asking which they are first: a unionist or a farmer?
Still, Brexit is merely an accelerant. It doesn't alter the fundamentals: Northern Ireland makes no economic sense and the dividend of the peace process is that economics and co-operation can now be unleashed. As they are, the sinews between the North and South will only get stronger.
Despite the 2008 economic crash, the Irish economy has performed strongly in recent decades and will continue to do so. Fortuitously, Ireland has skipped the Industrial Revolution and parked itself in the "knowledge economy", perfectly placed to capitalise on the value-adding jobs of the future.
Northern Ireland, in contrast, once the economic engine of the island of Ireland, has suffered a precipitous collapse. Like many parts of northern England, Belfast is a shadow of its former self and looking around at how it might be reinvented.
Roles have been reversed. Everyone now looks south to marvel at the Republic's record on foreign direct investment. So much so, that one of Peter Robinson's crowning achievements as first minister, as he saw it, was to win permission from the British government to lower corporation tax rates from 20 per cent to match the Republic at 12.5 per cent. This is set to happen from 2018.


The irony of a unionist politician – a one-time beret-wearing hardliner at that – arguing for fiscal harmonisation with the "foreign" state he feigned to disdain appeared lost on him. Loyal to the half-crown and all that.
So pragmatism from within unionism is possible. A similar, through-the-looking-glass moment came when Ian Paisley jnr entreated his constituents to apply for an Irish passport following the Brexit vote. And what will happen if, as seems likely, Protestants lose their hegemonic status in the 2021 census and become a minority community in the North? Could there be a general softening of attitudes to unity?


Either way, what should happen next is a proper grown-up conversation. This isn't about wearing down unionists, or leaving it to Sinn Féin to bang on about a Border poll, it's about all parties – Northern Ireland, the Republic and Britain – coming to a shared understanding that we cannot keep making this up as we go along. The political classes of all three parts of this equation need to openly discuss, plan and agree for the long term. Where is Northern Ireland headed by 2030?
What is clear is that, as this debate unfolds, Irish reunification will be the pragmatic, modernising position to advocate. The case for the status quo, for the retention of Northern Ireland, will be made by nostalgic romantics. Indeed, the evidence-based case for unity will be made in flat, sober tones.
PowerPoint presentations, not stirring graveside orations, are the order of the day. Moreover, it will not be through grand gestures that change is arrived at, but by small strokes of the oar.
Ending this self-denying ordinance about openly discussing Irish reunification is the first step. This then begins the process of brokering a permanent agreement and, while this is no small task, the circumstances are better than they have been for a century.
We must not overestimate the difficulties in making the case for Irish unity. Not when all the rational arguments are now so heavily stacked in its favour.
"Ah, but it's like getting porcupines to mate," I was told by a friend, a wise old Westminster veteran, as I set out to disprove his worldly cynicism.
"But given porcupines are not an endangered species," I replied, "they obviously manage to congress when we're not looking."

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 29, 2016, 12:05:52 AM
QuoteEither way, what should happen next is a proper grown-up conversation.

That is the hard bit. Such a conversation does not even seem possible in this forum, never mind generally.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on December 29, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 29, 2016, 12:05:52 AM
QuoteEither way, what should happen next is a proper grown-up conversation.

That is the hard bit. Such a conversation does not even seem possible in this forum, never mind generally.

I think any discussion on the topic brings it closer. The most important thing is keeping the discussion alive, the quality of the quality of the debate being secondary.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 29, 2016, 09:42:40 AM
The Irish govt is looking into the possibility of admitting NI into the EU post Brexit as a precondition of reunification. Brexit throws up some very interesting scenarios. It will.weaken the UK and leave the country out of the single market, neither of which suit unionists. The DUP's support for Brexit was of an FF level of economic incoherence.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on December 29, 2016, 09:49:16 AM
Quote from: seafoid on December 29, 2016, 09:42:40 AM
The Irish govt is looking into the possibility of admitting NI into the EU post Brexit as a precondition of reunification. Brexit throws up some very interesting scenarios. It will.weaken the UK and leave the country out of the single market, neither of which suit unionists. The DUP's support for Brexit was of an FF level of economic incoherence.

The Tories just have to say No
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 29, 2016, 11:27:22 AM
Quote from: vallankumous on December 29, 2016, 09:49:16 AM
Quote from: seafoid on December 29, 2016, 09:42:40 AM
The Irish govt is looking into the possibility of admitting NI into the EU post Brexit as a precondition of reunification. Brexit throws up some very interesting scenarios. It will.weaken the UK and leave the country out of the single market, neither of which suit unionists. The DUP's support for Brexit was of an FF level of economic incoherence.

The Tories just have to say No
Brexit is a potential catalyst. It may break up the union. The Tories have more existential things to worry about than Fermanagh
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on December 29, 2016, 11:18:24 PM
The Tories are looking for a facesaving excuse to jettison the north out of the UK ... Brexit could be seen as the right excuse at the right time.

The trick now is to create a New Ireland as opposed to the stigmatised (in the eyes of Unionism) United Ireland.  The last thing anyone needs is another 30+ year war on this island.  There's now a chance to get some serious discussion going, but it has to be all party and not just SF.  A SF view of any new Ireland will never go down with those from the unionist or loyalist traditions.

I'm confident now that I will see this new Ireland in my lifetime assuming I live for another 20 yrs or so. Before June 23rd, I held out no hope of seeing it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 29, 2016, 11:26:26 PM
I've already laid out the blueprint for the new All Ireland entity regularly here over the years
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: StGallsGAA on December 29, 2016, 11:41:29 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on December 29, 2016, 11:18:24 PM
The Tories are looking for a facesaving excuse to jettison the north out of the UK ... Brexit could be seen as the right excuse at the right time.

The trick now is to create a New Ireland as opposed to the stigmatised (in the eyes of Unionism) United Ireland.  The last thing anyone needs is another 30+ year war on this island.  There's now a chance to get some serious discussion going, but it has to be all party and not just SF.  A SF view of any new Ireland will never go down with those from the unionist or loyalist traditions.

I'm confident now that I will see this new Ireland in my lifetime assuming I live for another 20 yrs or so. Before June 23rd, I held out no hope of seeing it.

I'm sure the Brits would love to jettison South East Antrim on the Republic tomorrow.  Until they sort out that cesspit of 40 years of unhindered MI5 sponsorsed drugs and murder gangs they can keep it and fix themselves.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on December 29, 2016, 11:51:29 PM
Me too, but I'll post my own ideas here again.


Making a united Ireland easier for unionists to swallow would make it a lot more likely to happen sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 30, 2016, 12:02:34 AM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on December 29, 2016, 11:41:29 PM
I'm sure the Brits would love to jettison South East Antrim on the Republic tomorrow.  Until they sort out that cesspit of 40 years of unhindered MI5 sponsorsed drugs and murder gangs they can keep it and fix themselves.

Perhaps we could give it to Scotland?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 29, 2016, 11:51:29 PM
  • Unified state should join the Commonwealth, but as a republic with its own head of state. Two reasons:

Joining the Commonwealth is the type of reasonable measure that should be considered. Only in the deal though, if you join too soon they'd simply bank it as something you should have done all along. [/list]
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 30, 2016, 12:15:19 AM
Doing something with Scotland might be even better than join ing the commonwealth. Ireland and Scotland go back a very long way.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 01, 2017, 08:40:45 PM
I am reading Northern Catholics: in search of a state by Fionnuala O Connor. Written in 1993. A united Ireland was deemed impossible back then. Amazing how things change. The Prod brain drain doesnt get the attention it deserves. And the SDLP got 2/3 of the Catholic vote back then.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 02:11:28 AM
It is totally impossible now,with SF and SDLP respectively the junior partners in a Stormont administration's Government and Opposition,and SF alone shoring up a DUP under severe pressure.

Added to the practically universal opposition to Unity in the 26 counties,a United Ireland is now less likely than at any time since partition,and with Brexit this will be copperfastened further with a substantial physical border.

A big well done to all so called Nationalist parties North and South for delivering permanent British Rule.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on January 02, 2017, 04:36:09 AM
Quote. practically universal opposition     

And you're basing that on a recent poll that you're about to share with us I suppose? Looking forward to it.

Or are you yet again making shit up to support your baseless opinions.

"People are saying" thanks Donald...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 02, 2017, 07:29:18 AM
Brexit could cut UK incomes by 20%. And it will leave the UK outside the EU. Neither of these are attractive to Ulster Protestants  NI is an adopted child and the Eurosceptics now in charge in London are not interested in the Somme sacrifice or parades.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 08:47:10 AM
1.I am certain if the 26 county electorate were presented today with a referendum on Irish Unity,based on the full facts,i.e. cost,community division,parades disputes,ongoing paramilitarism,imbalance between public and private sector etc,that they would overwhelmingly reject this option.I would not blame them.

2.Neither Unionism,nor nationalism,will be swayed in any way by any economic arguments,to abandon what they see as their nationality,heritage or culture.

3.The idea that the South is or will be able to pick up the tab economically for the North,to compensate for any reduced British funding,is laughable.

In short there is not going to be a UI any time soon
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on January 02, 2017, 08:55:59 AM
If a united Ireland was granted in the morning I bet no one in Ardoyne or anywhere else would give a flying f**k where some shitty flute band marched.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 02, 2017, 09:25:15 AM
The UK is at a crossroads with a split population and a broken economic model. Previous episodes resulted in the establishment of the church of england and the execution of the king. Nothing can be guaranteed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 10:23:37 AM
Please explain how the South (the North can't do it) will fund a United Ireland,in the million to one chance a majority on both sides of the border would agree to it? Explain how,for example,gay marriage will be introduced into the North in the face of universal unionist (and a significant volume of nationalist) resistance?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 11:56:24 AM
Must have missed the Referendum on gay marriage in the 6 Cos?
The 6Cos residents need to grow up and start paying their way like normal people and societies do.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Samforever on January 02, 2017, 12:46:23 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 11:56:24 AM
Must have missed the Referendum on gay marriage in the 6 Cos?
The 6Cos residents need to grow up and start paying their way like normal people and societies do.

Did you miss how Roscommon voted on Gay Marriage. Think you should engage your brain before you come out with crap like that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 12:59:47 PM
50.9% of voters in Roscommon voted no to gay marriage.
What's that got to do with Tony's  claim of universal Unionist and significant nationalist opposition to it in the 6 Cos?
That's his opinion not a poll result.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 02, 2017, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 10:23:37 AM
Please explain how the South (the North can't do it) will fund a United Ireland,in the million to one chance a majority on both sides of the border would agree to it? Explain how,for example,gay marriage will be introduced into the North in the face of universal unionist (and a significant volume of nationalist) resistance?
The UK will chip in say £5bn for x years 
Economic activity will generate another £4bn. Derry will get its hinterland back as will Newry and Monaghan.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 02:44:32 PM
Fantasy.It is not going to happen.Implacable opposition North and South
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 02, 2017, 03:32:05 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 02:44:32 PM
Fantasy.It is not going to happen.Implacable opposition North and South
Brexit was never gong to happen. And now it's happening.
Northern Prods want the best for their kids.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 02, 2017, 04:01:17 PM
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/mickey-harte-says-gaa-could-drop-irish-anthem-and-tricolour-from-games-when-time-is-right-35335665.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on January 02, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 02, 2017, 04:01:17 PM
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/mickey-harte-says-gaa-could-drop-irish-anthem-and-tricolour-from-games-when-time-is-right-35335665.html
Hmmm I listened to the broadcast earlier. He was asked specifically about the issue. I don't think he said anything out of place other than suggest that precedent exists for change, and this portrayed the GAA in a positive light.
I wouldn't have expected MH to go all "Never, never, never" with the interviewer William Crawley, a former presbyterian minister.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 05:55:25 PM
This thread highlights once again the ignorance of free staters as far as the North is concerned.Unionists will not accept a United Ireland under any circumstances,economic or otherwise.

Also the southern government has not nor will ever actively campaign or plan for unity as they cannot afford it nor do they have any desire to manage 1m disaffected unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 06:07:55 PM
So in 20 years time 700,000 Unionist  will be allowed to ignore the wishes of 1,000,000 Nationalists.
Tony's posts also highlights his ignorance of the 26 Counties.
The "Free State" was abolished in 1937 so there are no "Free Staters" any more.
Also there is no such thing as a "southern government". The Government  here is called the Irish Government. 
God but  some of the 6Cos lot are hard work
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 06:41:07 PM
The Good Friday Agreement allows for both Governments to "consider" the outcome of a referendum on Irish Unity.That is a far cry from any commitment to enacting the will of the people,or a timetable etc,and to date SF cannot even persuade the Brits to hold a referendum,even when the chances of a vote for unity are slim!

There is no will or push for unity, North or South,Seafoid does not explain how it is affordable.During the GFA talks,a United Ireland wasn't even on the agenda.One of the strongest cases the free state Govt made for a Remain vote in the U.K. Referendum,was that the EU gave both the UK and the Free state an opportunity to consult on and manage any problems concerning the North on the fringes of EU meetings.That suggests that Dublin sees the UK rule in the North to be indefinite.

The govt in Dublin cannot be called an Irish Government when it only governs 26 counties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 02, 2017, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 06:07:55 PM
So in 20 years time 700,000 Unionist  will be allowed to ignore the wishes of 1,000,000 Nationalists.
Tony's posts also highlights his ignorance of the 26 Counties.
The "Free State" was abolished in 1937 so there are no "Free Staters" any more.
Also there is no such thing as a "southern government". The Government  here is called the Irish Government. 
God but  some of the 6Cos lot are hard work

I still hear black north , Nordies and West brits, all directed to Catholics who live in N.I so f**k up
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on January 02, 2017, 06:55:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 06:07:55 PM
So in 20 years time 700,000 Unionist  will be allowed to ignore the wishes of 1,000,000 Nationalists.
Tony's posts also highlights his ignorance of the 26 Counties.
The "Free State" was abolished in 1937 so there are no "Free Staters" any more.
Also there is no such thing as a "southern government". The Government  here is called the Irish Government. 
God but  some of the 6Cos lot are hard work

You're presuming that 1m Catholics will vote for Irish Unity should the situation arise.

Ideologically yes most Catholics want a United Ireland but much more importantly we need to know what that looks like. Would the NI people be better off joining the South or would Brexit have taken hold well by then and their lot would be better with the status quo.

A lot of assumptions made by the older generation who struggled and were beaten down by the Unionists/Brits but people born after the Civil Rights movement have had a decent life and are much more apathetic towards 'the cause'.

Basically unless our lives are obviously better off in a United Ireland it won't happen. There is no possible way life could be better for those in the 26 with us Uniting so on that side I see no chance it is happening anytime soon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 02, 2017, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 06:41:07 PM
The Good Friday Agreement allows for both Governments to "consider" the outcome of a referendum on Irish Unity.That is a far cry from any commitment to enacting the will of the people,or a timetable etc,and to date SF cannot even persuade the Brits to hold a referendum,even when the chances of a vote for unity are slim!

There is no will or push for unity, North or South,Seafoid does not explain how it is affordable.During the GFA talks,a United Ireland wasn't even on the agenda.One of the strongest cases the free state Govt made for a Remain vote in the U.K. Referendum,was that the EU gave both the UK and the Free state an opportunity to consult on and manage any problems concerning the North on the fringes of EU meetings.That suggests that Dublin sees the UK rule in the North to be indefinite.

The govt in Dublin cannot be called an Irish Government when it only governs 26 counties.
A UI might be like greatness. It may be thrust on Ireland. The Brits would continue to pay a certain amount. The EU would Chip in. And there would be economic advantages. RTE could bring the people around to the idea.
Pension funds could invest in the North rather than in bonds yielding 0.5% 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 07:01:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 02, 2017, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 06:07:55 PM
So in 20 years time 700,000 Unionist  will be allowed to ignore the wishes of 1,000,000 Nationalists.
Tony's posts also highlights his ignorance of the 26 Counties.
The "Free State" was abolished in 1937 so there are no "Free Staters" any more.
Also there is no such thing as a "southern government". The Government  here is called the Irish Government. 
God but  some of the 6Cos lot are hard work

.I so f**k up

You are certainly hard work ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 02, 2017, 07:07:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 07:01:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 02, 2017, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 06:07:55 PM
So in 20 years time 700,000 Unionist  will be allowed to ignore the wishes of 1,000,000 Nationalists.
Tony's posts also highlights his ignorance of the 26 Counties.
The "Free State" was abolished in 1937 so there are no "Free Staters" any more.
Also there is no such thing as a "southern government". The Government  here is called the Irish Government. 
God but  some of the 6Cos lot are hard work

.I so f**k up

You are certainly hard work ;D

But you are a WUM! You do post stuff like Seafoid to get a rise (in your pants) about the north and it's very typical of a view 'nordies' have of the south... you've absolutely no interest in a united ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 07:18:42 PM
3 incorrect assertions in that post Milltown..  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on January 02, 2017, 07:35:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 07:18:42 PM
3 incorrect assertions in that post Milltown..  ;)

Ross is a typical free stater - all mouth and a total hypocrite. Pay no attention to him.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 02, 2017, 08:14:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 02, 2017, 06:41:07 PM
The Good Friday Agreement allows for both Governments to "consider" the outcome of a referendum on Irish Unity.That is a far cry from any commitment to enacting the will of the people,or a timetable etc,and to date SF cannot even persuade the Brits to hold a referendum,even when the chances of a vote for unity are slim!

There is no will or push for unity, North or South,Seafoid does not explain how it is affordable.During the GFA talks,a United Ireland wasn't even on the agenda.One of the strongest cases the free state Govt made for a Remain vote in the U.K. Referendum,was that the EU gave both the UK and the Free state an opportunity to consult on and manage any problems concerning the North on the fringes of EU meetings.That suggests that Dublin sees the UK rule in the North to be indefinite.

The govt in Dublin cannot be called an Irish Government when it only governs 26 counties.
the GFA assumes the UK is a member of the EU
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 03, 2017, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 02, 2017, 06:07:55 PM
So in 20 years time 700,000 Unionist  will be allowed to ignore the wishes of 1,000,000 Nationalists.
Tony's posts also highlights his ignorance of the 26 Counties.
The "Free State" was abolished in 1937 so there are no "Free Staters" any more.
Also there is no such thing as a "southern government". The Government  here is called the Irish Government. 
God but  some of the 6Cos lot are hard work
Yes as are some from the 26. Ignore Tony he deliberately uses the free state term to get a rise.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 03, 2017, 10:11:25 AM
If there was a united Ireland would a lot of Ulster Protestants  relocate to England or Scotland ? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSccVia0K4
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 03, 2017, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: seafoid on January 03, 2017, 10:11:25 AM
If there was a united Ireland would a lot of Ulster Protestants  relocate to England or Scotland ? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSccVia0K4
Brexit means brexit so no, they'd be put in a refugee camp and then shipped back.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 03, 2017, 12:44:55 PM
 Ignore Tony .
[/quote]

That's would probably hurt him more than pointing out his lack of knowledge  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on January 03, 2017, 01:03:05 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 03, 2017, 10:11:25 AM
If there was a united Ireland would a lot of Ulster Protestants  relocate to England or Scotland ? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSccVia0K4

I think people prefer their own home.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hectic on January 03, 2017, 03:29:45 PM
The Republic of Ireland is not a country but rather an independent sovereign state in the island of Ireland.

Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK until such times as the majority of the people in Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland want the status of Northern Ireland to change.  Should this happen then the 'British' and 'Irish' governments are under a binding obligation to change the status of Northern Ireland and bring about a united Ireland.

We saw with Brexit how these things can play out - essentially campaigners often play to the lowest common denominator to try and push through their goals.  We also see every time there is an election in the North that the dwindling numbers who vote often head back to old entrenched positions - those who are sick of the sight of the politicians that we have tend to refrain.

In a unity referendum, if it ever came about, there would be plenty of playing to the fears of those in the south about having a rampant mob of loyalists kicking off in the event of things not going their way and no doubt a fair few shots across the bow en route.  Likewise northern Unionists would be fed a diet of the untold hells that they would experience being part of a 32 county Ireland. 

For me the real debate would have to be an economic one - personally I believe that one island with one economy would be the best bet in the long run but at the same time I am not convinced this debate will happen in my lifetime especially if you consider we are nearly as long out of the 'troubles' as we were in them and while certain aspects of society have improved we are still stuck on the same cycle at Stormont with the failings continuing to roll out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 03, 2017, 06:03:08 PM
A UI would have to be with consent. Economics could change Unionist attitudes. The UK is run for the benefit of the richest 1% and Brexit will hurt NI Protestants.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 03, 2017, 06:49:46 PM
Hectic,read the GFA.The vote in favour of unity commits both Governments to do nothing only consider the options.Neither is any time frame mentioned.

Now if the Brits (supported as always be the free state government) won't allow a referendum now,when the result is guaranteed to preserve the status quo,you can bet they will never allow one if the result is in any sort of doubt.

That is the reason why I consider it to be a complete waste of time aspiring for Irish Unity,and in my view the biggest impediment is the free state government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 03, 2017, 07:09:15 PM
First impediment is the 6 Cos voters.
If the soon to be Catholic majority voted in big enough numbers for the 2 Nationalists parties then it wouldn't be long to when it would "appear to the Secretary of State" that there might be a majority in favour of UI.
He has to then have the referendum/plebiscite/poll.
The Government of the State whose name is " Éire, or in the English language Ireland" have no role in organising a vote in the 6 Cos.

Can we take it Tony will be voting to keep the 6 Cos in the "UK" as he seems to have a major disdain for his fellow countrymen in Connacht, Leinster, Munster , Cavan , Donegal and Monaghan😈
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hectic on January 03, 2017, 07:40:54 PM
The signing of the treaty did away with Ireland as a united entity and in it place created two states. I consider myself to be an Irish man living on the divided island of Ireland alongside fellow Irish men and women living on the divided island of Ireland be that 'North' or 'South'. And of course our unionist cousin's who also inhabit both parts of Ireland though in greater numbers in the 'North'.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 03, 2017, 09:14:04 PM
The fact remains that a referendum under the GFA terms,commits both Govts to do absolutely nothing in terms of implementing the outcome of a vote for unity.Look at the prevarication over the Brexit vote,by the UK government

I cannot at any stage remember,during talks which have been going on for decades,before and after the GFA,where the freestate govt did anything other than support the British view,that partition must be maintained.

Therefore what is the point of wasting your life aspiring to Irish Unity?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 03, 2017, 09:20:29 PM
Neither the Treaty nor the GFA signed away the 6 counties for eternity. What makes now interesting is Brexit and what it will mean for British incomes. The eurosceptics are clueless. Britain has gone from running a global empire to becoming a mediocrity with a failing economy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on January 04, 2017, 02:47:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 03, 2017, 09:14:04 PM
The fact remains that a referendum under the GFA terms,commits both Govts to do absolutely nothing in terms of implementing the outcome of a vote for unity.Look at the prevarication over the Brexit vote,by the UK government

I cannot at any stage remember,during talks which have been going on for decades,before and after the GFA,where the freestate govt did anything other than support the British view,that partition must be maintained.

Therefore what is the point of wasting your life aspiring to Irish Unity?

Why would you want to somehow trick or force the majority in the north into a united Ireland against their wishes? Do you not think it'd be better to wait until there's a majority in the north in favour of it so that reunification goes more smoothly?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 04, 2017, 06:59:55 AM
If the Tory Eurosceptics are willing to throw the City of London under the bus they can shaft the Unionists who have mismanaged their Protestant shangri-la since day 1. . Brexit is not government as usual. Every couple of hundred years England goes postal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 05, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 04, 2017, 02:47:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 03, 2017, 09:14:04 PM
The fact remains that a referendum under the GFA terms,commits both Govts to do absolutely nothing in terms of implementing the outcome of a vote for unity.Look at the prevarication over the Brexit vote,by the UK government

I cannot at any stage remember,during talks which have been going on for decades,before and after the GFA,where the freestate govt did anything other than support the British view,that partition must be maintained.

Therefore what is the point of wasting your life aspiring to Irish Unity?

Why would you want to somehow trick or force the majority in the north into a united Ireland against their wishes? Do you not think it'd be better to wait until there's a majority in the north in favour of it so that reunification goes more smoothly?

Why do you care you have abandoned Ireland and are living the dream with all the minorities in America.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on January 05, 2017, 09:29:47 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 05, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
Why do you care you have abandoned Ireland and are living the dream with all the minorities in America.

Living in a different country from you is "living the dream" all right.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 06, 2017, 08:28:41 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 05, 2017, 09:29:47 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 05, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
Why do you care you have abandoned Ireland and are living the dream with all the minorities in America.

Living in a different country from you is "living the dream" all right.

Good man don't hurry back anytime ever.  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on January 06, 2017, 09:01:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 06, 2017, 08:28:41 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 05, 2017, 09:29:47 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 05, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
Why do you care you have abandoned Ireland and are living the dream with all the minorities in America.

Living in a different country from you is "living the dream" all right.

Good man don't hurry back anytime ever.  ;D
You make that easy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 06, 2017, 09:05:30 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 06, 2017, 09:01:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 06, 2017, 08:28:41 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 05, 2017, 09:29:47 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 05, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
Why do you care you have abandoned Ireland and are living the dream with all the minorities in America.

Living in a different country from you is "living the dream" all right.

Good man don't hurry back anytime ever.  ;D
You make that easy.

You are probably an illegal and cant come anyway. Bet your old neighbours are devastated. 😊
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 06, 2017, 10:32:13 PM
In all seriousness does anyone on this Board,even teenage members if there are any,seriously  believe a United Ireland will come about in their lifetime? Forget Seafoid's scenarios,the fact is no significant proportion of people want it,North or South for various reasons, there is no vision among any political party North or South,never mind a plan,so what is the point of wasting time even discussing it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on January 06, 2017, 10:34:39 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 06, 2017, 09:05:30 PM
You are probably an illegal and cant come anyway. Bet your old neighbours are devastated. 😊

Sorry to disappoint you but I have a green card and I'll be visiting your side of the water in the summer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on January 06, 2017, 10:38:43 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 06, 2017, 10:32:13 PM
In all seriousness does anyone on this Board,even teenage members if there are any,seriously  believe a United Ireland will come about in their lifetime? Forget Seafoid's scenarios,the fact is no significant proportion of people want it,North or South for various reasons, there is no vision among any political party North or South,never mind a plan,so what is the point of wasting time even discussing it?

I think it's an achievable goal in my lifetime, and I'm seeing some progress on some of the things that could make it happen. But the biggest obstacle (and one that you're going to disagree with) is segregated education. As long as there's no willingness to tackle that elephant in the room, progress is going to be limited.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Chief on January 07, 2017, 12:27:18 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 06, 2017, 10:32:13 PM
In all seriousness does anyone on this Board,even teenage members if there are any,seriously  believe a United Ireland will come about in their lifetime? Forget Seafoid's scenarios,the fact is no significant proportion of people want it,North or South for various reasons, there is no vision among any political party North or South,never mind a plan,so what is the point of wasting time even discussing it?

Yeah to be honest, I do.

We are likely to witness a nationalist voting majority in the next decade. Amongst that demographic there is strong discontent with the current constitutional status. There is an historic hostility to partition and a recent hostility to the Brexit vote.

In addition to this there are now solid economic arguments in favour of a united Ireland. (Well as solid as economic arguments can ever be). There will be those who disagree but an economic argument in favour of a united Ireland is at least as valid as one against it.

Thirdly there is a rising independence movement across Europe. Scotland and Catalonia being the fashionable examples.Success for any of these places will inevitably raise old passions here as well.

Whilst none of the above makes a United Ireland inevitable, it makes it a realistic possibility if enough people are willing to agitate or work for it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 07:29:36 AM
While I don't disagree with any of the points you make,there still won't be a United Ireland.A nationalist majority will not make it happen,same way as the Brexit majority hasn't or won't make that happen.If economic arguments worked,northern nationalists would have accepted British Rule in the North decades ago,or unionists would have been swayed by the Celtic Tiger era.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: No wides on January 07, 2017, 07:48:11 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 06, 2017, 10:34:39 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 06, 2017, 09:05:30 PM
You are probably an illegal and cant come anyway. Bet your old neighbours are devastated. 😊

Sorry to disappoint you but I have a green card and I'll be visiting your side of the water in the summer.

You bringing your kids?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 07, 2017, 09:06:41 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 07:29:36 AM
While I don't disagree with any of the points you make,there still won't be a United Ireland.A nationalist majority will not make it happen,same way as the Brexit majority hasn't or won't make that happen.If economic arguments worked,northern nationalists would have accepted British Rule in the North decades ago,or unionists would have been swayed by the Celtic Tiger era.
The UK was stable up until the end of last June.
It looks as though the Eurosceptics want to leave without a deal. That will have implications for everything from Marks and Spencer to the NHS. Britishness will be economically downgraded. The Eurosceptics are a cargo cult and they are calling the shots in London.   

It was financial ineptitude that killed Fianna Fail in 2010. When people realise the Government is useless is when the unexpected can happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 10:19:53 AM
We have had nothing but useless Governments North and South,and will have many more but it will not change a thing.As Alex Kane said last week if Britain does exit the EU it will be so lame that no one will spot the difference.In any event it won't change the fundamentals,a United Ireland is neither affordable nor wanted by any significant number of people,North and South.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on January 07, 2017, 10:32:07 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 10:19:53 AM
We have had nothing but useless Governments North and South,and will have many more but it will not change a thing.As Alex Kane said last week if Britain does exit the EU it will be so lame that no one will spot the difference.In any event it won't change the fundamentals,a United Ireland is neither affordable nor wanted by any significant number of people,North and South.

I'd say the same was said about partition but then I'm too young to remember. The same was said about a united Europe and so on and so on.
The fact that this discussion is happening all over Ireland and abroad only goes against the status quo. As it is with the Gandi qoute.
First the idea is ignored, then laughed at, then debated and eventually a decision is made. This is stage 3.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 02:18:30 PM
Are the people that matter talking about it? Is it the topic of conversation in shops,offices,factories and pubs all over Ireland? If so I must be mixing in the wrong circles.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 07, 2017, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 10:19:53 AM
We have had nothing but useless Governments North and South,and will have many more but it will not change a thing.As Alex Kane said last week if Britain does exit the EU it will be so lame that no one will spot the difference.In any event it won't change the fundamentals,a United Ireland is neither affordable nor wanted by any significant number of people,North and South.

Alex Kane is a unionist. There is no doubt that Brexit will,  initially at least,  fall short of the big talk. But even a 'Norway'  style deal,  which would be regarded as lame overall would not include agriculture,  and could have a big impact to on this island. Either because of the mess it creates or the new arrangements needed to prevent the mess.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 07, 2017, 03:28:30 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 02:18:30 PM
Are the people that matter talking about it? Is it the topic of conversation in shops,offices,factories and pubs all over Ireland? If so I must be mixing in the wrong circles.
People don't understand tail risk. Nobody thought AIB would collapse either.

14 May 2009 Irish Times

Mr Gleeson said nationalisation would be "a bad thing for shareholders and for Ireland"  and the bank would avoid it "at all costs".
Asked why AIB did not heed warnings from analysts about the risks facing the lender as far back as late 2006, Mr Gleeson said: "If you look at the tipsters for yesterday's racing, one in 10 of the tipsters is right and nine are wrong."


Nobody who voted Brexit wants a drop in income . Everybody wants no immigrants and a pony but Brexit will probably cost 20% of income the way things are going.

Jamie Oliver has to shut 6 restaurants in England because of the impact of the collapse of sterling on the price of Italian ingredients.
The unionist skiing business is already showing big drops in the number of Ulster skiers/marchers în EU ski resorts.

But no surrender to economic logic !
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 07, 2017, 04:30:40 PM
The UK economy is a mess


" Deregulation of the financial sector (started by Thatcher in the late 1980s) has allowed the majority of our economy to become dependent on commercial bank credit.  This deliberate debt bubble creation has left us with an utter inability to pay down our debts en-mass.  As soon as any meaningful attempt is made, the economy contracts due to a shrinking of the money supply.
This debt based economic policy has continued through successive Labour, Tory and coalition governments.  Now the mathematical limits of ever-increasing debt have been reached, but none of the major parties have anything approaching an effective remedy for our economic ills."

The Pope is a better option
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 10:19:53 AM
We have had nothing but useless Governments North and South,and will have many more but it will not change a thing.As Alex Kane said last week if Britain does exit the EU it will be so lame that no one will spot the difference.In any event it won't change the fundamentals,a United Ireland is neither affordable nor wanted by any significant number of people,North and South.

A lot of people do want a UI, but it all comes down to money.

I can't ever see a UI. Britain created this gerrymandered sectarian cesspit, then walked away. Sectarianism is ingrained in Protestantism, and they will never let Norn Iron slip from Britain's grasp. Above everything else (jobs, education, economy etc) that is their number one priority.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 07, 2017, 05:57:44 PM
Different how?  An alternative economic model based on other people paying?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
The way of life,culture values of the North are substantially different to that of the UK and the 26 counties,leaving aside all economic arguments.We are more religious,more conservative,more community orientated,more plain speaking.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 07, 2017, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
The way of life,culture values of the North are substantially different to that of the UK and the 26 counties,leaving aside all economic arguments.We are more religious,more conservative,more community orientated,more plain speaking.
But people in the North like things like holidays and wine that sterling won't be able to buy the way things are going
British money bought off the dissenters after 1798 so it would be ironic if Brexit brought them back into the Republican fold and back to the flag.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.

There is no common culture though. Unionist fear and insecurity, and all that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 07, 2017, 06:27:43 PM
Bejases some of ye are fairly "conservative" alright. ......still living in 1690.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 07, 2017, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.

There is no common culture though. Unionist fear and insecurity, and all that.
Do you not think that Unionists actually prefer the status quo (i.e. Remaining within the UK)?  Bit of a cliche to say that Unionist opposition to a UI is all about fear and insecurity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BallyhaiseMan on January 07, 2017, 07:37:38 PM
Fearon, you have little in common with virtually all 6 county posters on this board, nevermind the overall Nationalist and Republican community in the North with your warped views.

You do have lots  in common with the DUP/Evangelical nutjob brigade on the unionist side however.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 09:12:09 PM
Your appreciation of diversity is astounding.Describing unionists as nut jobs merely confirms their prejudices.In fairness it is probably the predominant view of unionists by the people in the South
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 07, 2017, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.

There is no common culture though. Unionist fear and insecurity, and all that.
Do you not think that Unionists actually prefer the status quo (i.e. Remaining within the UK)?  Bit of a cliche to say that Unionist opposition to a UI is all about fear and insecurity.

I was merely recycling those words from another post.

Yes, they do prefer the quo. Understandably so, for them. But Britain created the Protestant mindset in this place.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BallyhaiseMan on January 07, 2017, 09:29:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 09:12:09 PM
Your appreciation of diversity is astounding.Describing unionists as nut jobs merely confirms their prejudices.In fairness it is probably the predominant view of unionists by the people in the South

You obviously can't read either,Kindly point out where I labelled all unionists as nutjobs. I labelled the DUP/Evangelical brigade within the Unionist community as nutjobs. Most reasonable people  would agree with me on that. You have alot in common with those bigots, with your prejudicial views. You have little in common with the vast majority of people from both communities in the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2017, 09:32:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 07, 2017, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
The way of life,culture values of the North are substantially different to that of the UK and the 26 counties,leaving aside all economic arguments.We are more religious,more conservative,more community orientated,more plain speaking.
But people in the North like things like holidays and wine that sterling won't be able to buy the way things are going
British money bought off the dissenters after 1798 so it would be ironic if Brexit brought them back into the Republican fold and back to the flag.

And people in the south prefer water and staying in, as they can't afford anything else
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Minder on January 07, 2017, 09:38:48 PM
Saw the other day the unemployment rate in the south is at a pre 2008 crash low
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 07, 2017, 09:56:42 PM
Quote from: Milltown


And people in the south prefer water and staying in, as they can't afford anything else
/quote]
Tell that to the thousands  packed into the €6 or €7 a pint pubs in Dublin......
Or do you mean Cork and Kerry - ya know - the south
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2017, 10:49:09 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 07, 2017, 09:56:42 PM
Quote from: Milltown


And people in the south prefer water and staying in, as they can't afford anything else
/quote]
Tell that to the thousands  packed into the €6 or €7 a pint pubs in Dublin......
Or do you mean Cork and Kerry - ya know - the south

All tourists
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 08, 2017, 02:03:12 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 07, 2017, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.

There is no common culture though. Unionist fear and insecurity, and all that.
Do you not think that Unionists actually prefer the status quo (i.e. Remaining within the UK)?  Bit of a cliche to say that Unionist opposition to a UI is all about fear and insecurity.

I was merely recycling those words from another post.

Yes, they do prefer the quo. Understandably so, for them. But Britain created the Protestant mindset in this place.
How does that explain a significant proportion of folk from the catholic / nationalist population being happy with the status quo too?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2017, 09:32:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 07, 2017, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
The way of life,culture values of the North are substantially different to that of the UK and the 26 counties,leaving aside all economic arguments.We are more religious,more conservative,more community orientated,more plain speaking.
But people in the North like things like holidays and wine that sterling won't be able to buy the way things are going
British money bought off the dissenters after 1798 so it would be ironic if Brexit brought them back into the Republican fold and back to the flag.

And people in the south prefer water and staying in, as they can't afford anything else
Lots of people in the North prefer a glass of wine at home to the pub...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
At the end of the day,this is quite probably the only place in Ireland today,where a United Ireland is being discussed!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2017, 09:32:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 07, 2017, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
The way of life,culture values of the North are substantially different to that of the UK and the 26 counties,leaving aside all economic arguments.We are more religious,more conservative,more community orientated,more plain speaking.
But people in the North like things like holidays and wine that sterling won't be able to buy the way things are going
British money bought off the dissenters after 1798 so it would be ironic if Brexit brought them back into the Republican fold and back to the flag.

And people in the south prefer water and staying in, as they can't afford anything else
Lots of people in the North prefer a glass of wine at home to the pub...

Source??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 08, 2017, 09:58:42 AM
Quote from: michaelg on January 08, 2017, 02:03:12 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 07, 2017, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.

There is no common culture though. Unionist fear and insecurity, and all that.
Do you not think that Unionists actually prefer the status quo (i.e. Remaining within the UK)?  Bit of a cliche to say that Unionist opposition to a UI is all about fear and insecurity.

I was merely recycling those words from another post.

Yes, they do prefer the quo. Understandably so, for them. But Britain created the Protestant mindset in this place.
How does that explain a significant proportion of folk from the catholic / nationalist population being happy with the status quo too?
Are they really happy or just content that they can now live lives free from discrimination, can get fair play in public jobs and housing etc.
I'm sure a lot over them aren't too happy about public funds being liberally doled out to Orange hatefest illegal bonfires while small grants to Irish language students are cut by a bigoted DUP minister .
Maybe a lot are just waiting for demographics to kick in and of course the old old reason - if most people are doing alright for themselves what's the fuss?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 10:16:38 AM
The question is about how support for the status quo will look if there is a hard Brexit and GDP falls by 5% with sterling falling another 10%. Marmite will disappear.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 08, 2017, 11:01:34 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2017, 09:58:42 AM
Quote from: michaelg on January 08, 2017, 02:03:12 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 07, 2017, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.

There is no common culture though. Unionist fear and insecurity, and all that.
Do you not think that Unionists actually prefer the status quo (i.e. Remaining within the UK)?  Bit of a cliche to say that Unionist opposition to a UI is all about fear and insecurity.

I was merely recycling those words from another post.

Yes, they do prefer the quo. Understandably so, for them. But Britain created the Protestant mindset in this place.
How does that explain a significant proportion of folk from the catholic / nationalist population being happy with the status quo too?
Are they really happy or just content that they can now live lives free from discrimination, can get fair play in public jobs and housing etc.
I'm sure a lot over them aren't too happy about public funds being liberally doled out to Orange hatefest illegal bonfires while small grants to Irish language students are cut by a bigoted DUP minister .
Maybe a lot are just waiting for demographics to kick in and of course the old old reason - if most people are doing alright for themselves what's the fuss?

That's it.

Was the average catholic happy with the status quo in the 60s and 70s, when faced with internment, collusion, constant harrassment from b specials/udr, facing house/car searches, and generally living in fear of their lives everyday? That's not even mentioning the deliberate discrimination in jobs, housing, education, public funding etc. Being part of a United Mongolia, most would have taken then rather than remaining in the uk.

Now that's it's relatively peaceful, and things improved, people put themselves and their families ahead of a UI. Nothing wrong with looking after yourself.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Minder on January 08, 2017, 11:16:24 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 08, 2017, 11:01:34 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2017, 09:58:42 AM
Quote from: michaelg on January 08, 2017, 02:03:12 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 07, 2017, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.

There is no common culture though. Unionist fear and insecurity, and all that.
Do you not think that Unionists actually prefer the status quo (i.e. Remaining within the UK)?  Bit of a cliche to say that Unionist opposition to a UI is all about fear and insecurity.

I was merely recycling those words from another post.

Yes, they do prefer the quo. Understandably so, for them. But Britain created the Protestant mindset in this place.
How does that explain a significant proportion of folk from the catholic / nationalist population being happy with the status quo too?
Are they really happy or just content that they can now live lives free from discrimination, can get fair play in public jobs and housing etc.
I'm sure a lot over them aren't too happy about public funds being liberally doled out to Orange hatefest illegal bonfires while small grants to Irish language students are cut by a bigoted DUP minister .
Maybe a lot are just waiting for demographics to kick in and of course the old old reason - if most people are doing alright for themselves what's the fuss?

That's it.

Was the average catholic happy with the status quo in the 60s and 70s, when faced with internment, collusion, constant harrassment from b specials/udr, facing house/car searches, and generally living in fear of their lives everyday? That's not even mentioning the deliberate discrimination in jobs, housing, education, public funding etc. Being part of a United Mongolia, most would have taken then rather than remaining in the uk.

Now that's it's relatively peaceful, and things improved, people put themselves and their families ahead of a UI. Nothing wrong with looking after yourself.

Yeah that is exactly my view on it and why I don't see it happening any time soon
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on January 08, 2017, 12:21:03 PM
This is the trick that unionist politicians are missing (and have always missed). Faced with a changing demographic, the single best way for unionists to preserve the union is to placate the nationalist and potentially nationalist voters.  Keep them happy with their lot and there will NEVER be a UI. Moves like that bigot Givan made the other day are a sure fire way of doing the opposite.  Which makes you wonder... do unionists actually want to preserve the union or do they just want the power??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 03:56:59 PM
Seafoid even in Portadown my.parents were never once out of work and they both would have started in the 1940s.My father was the sole Catholic employee in the company.The alternative a UI would probably have led to emigration to England to find work as was the lot of so many in the South.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 04:04:18 PM
Andersons are some UK crowd who advise farmers and say Brexit will be highly disruptive so hold off on investment. Protestant farmers will lose out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 04:04:18 PM
Andersons are some UK crowd who advise farmers and say Brexit will be highly disruptive so hold off on investment. Protestant farmers will lose out.

Will catholic farmers lose out?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 08, 2017, 05:08:27 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 03:56:59 PM
Seafoid even in Portadown my.parents were never once out of work and they both would have started in the 1940s.My father was the sole Catholic employee in the company.The alternative a UI would probably have led to emigration to England to find work as was the lot of so many in the South.

What about the thousands in the North that did have to leave for England? It wasn't as if the Orange state had fair employment legislation back then! Your parents case were obviously the exception rather than the rule.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 04:04:18 PM
Andersons are some UK crowd who advise farmers and say Brexit will be highly disruptive so hold off on investment. Protestant farmers will lose out.

Will catholic farmers lose out?
Not in a united Ireland which will still have EU funding

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 04:04:18 PM
Andersons are some UK crowd who advise farmers and say Brexit will be highly disruptive so hold off on investment. Protestant farmers will lose out.

Will catholic farmers lose out?
Not in a united Ireland which will still have EU funding

So will Protestant farmers lose out in a UI? Do they lose out down in prosperous south??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 06:22:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 04:04:18 PM
Andersons are some UK crowd who advise farmers and say Brexit will be highly disruptive so hold off on investment. Protestant farmers will lose out.

Will catholic farmers lose out?
Not in a united Ireland which will still have EU funding

So will Protestant farmers lose out in a UI? Do they lose out down in prosperous south??
They all vote Fine Gael
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 06:22:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 04:04:18 PM
Andersons are some UK crowd who advise farmers and say Brexit will be highly disruptive so hold off on investment. Protestant farmers will lose out.

Will catholic farmers lose out?
Not in a united Ireland which will still have EU funding

So will Protestant farmers lose out in a UI? Do they lose out down in prosperous south??
They all vote Fine Gael

So will Protestant farmers lose out in a UI? And do they lose out in a prosperous South?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 06:40:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 06:22:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 04:04:18 PM
Andersons are some UK crowd who advise farmers and say Brexit will be highly disruptive so hold off on investment. Protestant farmers will lose out.

Will catholic farmers lose out?
Not in a united Ireland which will still have EU funding

So will Protestant farmers lose out in a UI? Do they lose out down in prosperous south??
They all vote Fine Gael

So will Protestant farmers lose out in a UI? And do they lose out in a prosperous South?
They will have EU support, tariff less access to EU markets and won't be tied to sterling. All of those will be better than being lashed to the UK.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 07:04:28 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 06:40:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 06:22:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 04:04:18 PM
Andersons are some UK crowd who advise farmers and say Brexit will be highly disruptive so hold off on investment. Protestant farmers will lose out.

Will catholic farmers lose out?
Not in a united Ireland which will still have EU funding

So will Protestant farmers lose out in a UI? Do they lose out down in prosperous south??
They all vote Fine Gael

So will Protestant farmers lose out in a UI? And do they lose out in a prosperous South?
They will have EU support, tariff less access to EU markets and won't be tied to sterling. All of those will be better than being lashed to the UK.

So your post was full of shit then?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 07:07:29 PM
Disadvantaged areas like Throne, Cornwall, Sunderland etc have most to gain from continued EU membership. Farmers too because the UK won't maintain EU levels of subsidy.  It looks as though Tory politics mean a hard exit with no trade deal with the EU. So protestants in the North will have to think about the way forward.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
I am not suggesting for one moment there was not widespread discrimination,gerrymandering in the North but I think its effects were over estimated.My parents were of the opinion that there was work of some description always for those who wanted it.As I've said before the middle classes of all hues were exempt from discrimination,Portadown like everywhere else always had its fair share of Catholic professionals and business people who started and grew businesses and lived in the leafy suburbs.

Much the same as the Protestant middle classes in the South I expect.

Seafoid there will be no hard Brexit,despite the bluster.As experienced commentator Alex Kane up here said last week,the Brexit will be so soft (assuming it goes ahead at all) that it will be unnoticeable
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2017, 07:30:15 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 07:07:29 PM
Disadvantaged areas like Throne, Cornwall, Sunderland etc have most to gain from continued EU membership. Farmers too because the UK won't maintain EU levels of subsidy.  It looks as though Tory politics mean a hard exit with no trade deal with the EU. So protestants in the North will have to think about the way forward.

Protestant farmers won't make or break an UI! Make a very very small minority of votes tbh
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 08:03:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
I am not suggesting for one moment there was not widespread discrimination,gerrymandering in the North but I think its effects were over estimated.My parents were of the opinion that there was work of some description always for those who wanted it.As I've said before the middle classes of all hues were exempt from discrimination,Portadown like everywhere else always had its fair share of Catholic professionals and business people who started and grew businesses and lived in the leafy suburbs.

Much the same as the Protestant middle classes in the South I expect.

Seafoid there will be no hard Brexit,despite the bluster.As experienced commentator Alex Kane up here said last week,the Brexit will be so soft (assuming it goes ahead at all) that it will be unnoticeable
Tony your Prime Minister on Sky today confirmed out means out. No Single Market.
Immigration is driving the show. Even more important than the economy. Sterling will be savaged. The City won't get passporting either. The UK owes £1.5 tn and has a deficit of 6% of GDP. It is really going to hurt.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 08:35:09 PM
All bluster.Tory donors are threatening to cut the funds if they leave the EU.Won't happen
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 08, 2017, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 08:35:09 PM
All bluster.Tory donors are threatening to cut the funds if they leave the EU.Won't happen
What happened to sterling indicates this is senior hurling. Senior sterling hurling

https://www.ft.com/content/6d28715a-d59a-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e
"Theresa May has indicated that Britain will leave the EU single market as she set out her determination to strike a post-Brexit trading deal that allows her to control immigration from the rest of Europe.
Mrs May said she was not interested in trying to "keep bits of membership" of the EU, rather that she wanted a bespoke British deal with the rest of Europe that delivered "the best possible deal for UK companies".
The prime minister's allies admit the EU will not allow Britain to stay a member of the single market, given that Mrs May has already said that controlling immigration and ending European Court of Justice jurisdiction were red lines."

the Eurosceptics are not rational 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 09, 2017, 10:04:39 AM
Quote from: michaelg on January 08, 2017, 02:03:12 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 07, 2017, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 07, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 07, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
The unionist siege mentality is based on fear and insecurity.They do know deep down however that Britain doesn't want them and if only nationalists could understand Dublin doesn't want them,then we all can begin to realise no one else wants us and begin to come together in the North and find commonality in our culture and way of life which is substantially different to that in the UK and 26 counties.

There is no common culture though. Unionist fear and insecurity, and all that.
Do you not think that Unionists actually prefer the status quo (i.e. Remaining within the UK)?  Bit of a cliche to say that Unionist opposition to a UI is all about fear and insecurity.

I was merely recycling those words from another post.

Yes, they do prefer the quo. Understandably so, for them. But Britain created the Protestant mindset in this place.
How does that explain a significant proportion of folk from the catholic / nationalist population being happy with the status quo too?
The biggest threat to the union is unionists themselves. As demonstrated by the DUP. There is no generosity of spirit or acceptance of the identity, flags and culture of their fellow countrymen. OWC can't even bring itself to respect the identity of most of its soccer team ffs. Most Catholics at the moment myself included know that a UI at the moment would probably cause the troubles in reverse and would prefer to let time and demographics sort the problem out. Clever Unionists would make us feel more at home and help us embrace our Irishness...but there aren't to many of them outside the Alliance party. Hence we have Carla Lockhart and Mike Nesbitt arguing on twitter over the weekend about who let the taigs into government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 09, 2017, 10:15:18 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 08:35:09 PM
All bluster.Tory donors are threatening to cut the funds if they leave the EU.Won't happen

Sterling ag titim aris....

https://www.ft.com/content/412136e8-d642-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e
Analysts said political discord over the UK's Brexit strategy would weigh on sterling even though economic data were proving resilient.
"Until the government finally presents a concrete and convincing strategy, market participants will increasingly fear a disaster," said Esther Reichelt at Commerzbank.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: HiMucker on January 09, 2017, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
I am not suggesting for one moment there was not widespread discrimination,gerrymandering in the North but I think its effects were over estimated.My parents were of the opinion that there was work of some description always for those who wanted it.As I've said before the middle classes of all hues were exempt from discrimination,Portadown like everywhere else always had its fair share of Catholic professionals and business people who started and grew businesses and lived in the leafy suburbs.

Much the same as the Protestant middle classes in the South I expect.

Seafoid there will be no hard Brexit,despite the bluster.As experienced commentator Alex Kane up here said last week,the Brexit will be so soft (assuming it goes ahead at all) that it will be unnoticeable
Well your Parents were wrong
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on January 17, 2017, 01:25:10 PM
this is about to get interesting. NI just became a Brexit bargaining chip.

Let's see where this goes...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on January 09, 2017, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
I am not suggesting for one moment there was not widespread discrimination,gerrymandering in the North but I think its effects were over estimated.My parents were of the opinion that there was work of some description always for those who wanted it.As I've said before the middle classes of all hues were exempt from discrimination,Portadown like everywhere else always had its fair share of Catholic professionals and business people who started and grew businesses and lived in the leafy suburbs.

Much the same as the Protestant middle classes in the South I expect.

Seafoid there will be no hard Brexit,despite the bluster.As experienced commentator Alex Kane up here said last week,the Brexit will be so soft (assuming it goes ahead at all) that it will be unnoticeable
Well your Parents were wrong

It looks like Alex Kane was wrong too, unless the whole thing unravels, which is still a possibility.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: seafoid on January 17, 2017, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on January 09, 2017, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
I am not suggesting for one moment there was not widespread discrimination,gerrymandering in the North but I think its effects were over estimated.My parents were of the opinion that there was work of some description always for those who wanted it.As I've said before the middle classes of all hues were exempt from discrimination,Portadown like everywhere else always had its fair share of Catholic professionals and business people who started and grew businesses and lived in the leafy suburbs.

Much the same as the Protestant middle classes in the South I expect.

Seafoid there will be no hard Brexit,despite the bluster.As experienced commentator Alex Kane up here said last week,the Brexit will be so soft (assuming it goes ahead at all) that it will be unnoticeable
Well your Parents were wrong

It looks like Alex Kane was wrong too, unless the whole thing unravels, which is still a possibility.
Brexit is really f**king stupid so it may be revoked

Thatcherism has pauperised huge chunks of England and they reciprocated via a f**k off vote in favour of Brexit
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Gross_domestic_product_(GDP)_per_inhabitant_in_purchasing_power_standard_(PPS)_in_relation_to_the_EU-28_average,_by_NUTS_2_regions,_2014_(%C2%B9)_(%25_of_the_EU-28_average,_EU-28_%3D_100)_RYB2016.png
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 01:43:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2017, 01:34:42 PM
Thatcherism has pauperised huge chunks of England and they reciprocated via a f**k off vote in favour of Brexit

How exactly will the f**k off improve the situation in these huge chunks?

Quote
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Gross_domestic_product_(GDP)_per_inhabitant_in_purchasing_power_standard_(PPS)_in_relation_to_the_EU-28_average,_by_NUTS_2_regions,_2014_(%C2%B9)_(%25_of_the_EU-28_average,_EU-28_%3D_100)_RYB2016.png

You could argue that the UK isn't much different than France!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: Franko on January 17, 2017, 01:51:24 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2017, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on January 09, 2017, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
I am not suggesting for one moment there was not widespread discrimination,gerrymandering in the North but I think its effects were over estimated.My parents were of the opinion that there was work of some description always for those who wanted it.As I've said before the middle classes of all hues were exempt from discrimination,Portadown like everywhere else always had its fair share of Catholic professionals and business people who started and grew businesses and lived in the leafy suburbs.

Much the same as the Protestant middle classes in the South I expect.

Seafoid there will be no hard Brexit,despite the bluster.As experienced commentator Alex Kane up here said last week,the Brexit will be so soft (assuming it goes ahead at all) that it will be unnoticeable
Well your Parents were wrong

It looks like Alex Kane was wrong too, unless the whole thing unravels, which is still a possibility.
Brexit is really f**king stupid so it may be revoked

Thatcherism has pauperised huge chunks of England and they reciprocated via a f**k off vote in favour of Brexit
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Gross_domestic_product_(GDP)_per_inhabitant_in_purchasing_power_standard_(PPS)_in_relation_to_the_EU-28_average,_by_NUTS_2_regions,_2014_(%C2%B9)_(%25_of_the_EU-28_average,_EU-28_%3D_100)_RYB2016.png

That's an interesting graphic.  I'm surprised at how well the 26 (or should I say Dublin, Kildare & Munster) fare here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 17, 2017, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: heganboy on January 17, 2017, 01:25:10 PM
this is about to get interesting. NI just became a Brexit bargaining chip.

Let's see where this goes...
NI is considerably behind Leinster and Munster as it is. Brexit will exacerbate the difference

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/d/da/Gross_domestic_product_%28GDP%29_per_inhabitant_in_purchasing_power_standard_%28PPS%29_in_relation_to_the_EU-28_average%2C_by_NUTS_2_regions%2C_2014_%28%C2%B9%29_%28%25_of_the_EU-28_average%2C_EU-28_%3D_100%29_RYB2016.png

James Craig must be spinning

"The hon. Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State. It would be rather interesting for historians of the future to compare a Catholic State launched in the South with a Protestant State launched in the North and to see which gets on the better and prospers the more. It is most interesting for me at the moment to watch how they are progressing. I am doing my best always to top the bill and to be ahead of the South."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 17, 2017, 01:51:24 PM
That's an interesting graphic.  I'm surprised at how well the 26 (or should I say Dublin, Kildare & Munster) fare here.

of course GDP may overstate things a bit. However, this was 2014, things in Leinster and Munster have improved since then and NI will fall a bit as Sterling goes down the toilet.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: Eamonnca1 on January 17, 2017, 05:09:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2017, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on January 09, 2017, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
I am not suggesting for one moment there was not widespread discrimination,gerrymandering in the North but I think its effects were over estimated.My parents were of the opinion that there was work of some description always for those who wanted it.As I've said before the middle classes of all hues were exempt from discrimination,Portadown like everywhere else always had its fair share of Catholic professionals and business people who started and grew businesses and lived in the leafy suburbs.

Much the same as the Protestant middle classes in the South I expect.

Seafoid there will be no hard Brexit,despite the bluster.As experienced commentator Alex Kane up here said last week,the Brexit will be so soft (assuming it goes ahead at all) that it will be unnoticeable
Well your Parents were wrong

It looks like Alex Kane was wrong too, unless the whole thing unravels, which is still a possibility.
Brexit is really f**king stupid so it may be revoked

Thatcherism has pauperised huge chunks of England and they reciprocated via a f**k off vote in favour of Brexit
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Gross_domestic_product_(GDP)_per_inhabitant_in_purchasing_power_standard_(PPS)_in_relation_to_the_EU-28_average,_by_NUTS_2_regions,_2014_(%C2%B9)_(%25_of_the_EU-28_average,_EU-28_%3D_100)_RYB2016.png

Jesus! And look at Germany. So much for reunification. The East is as impoverished as ever.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: Eamonnca1 on January 17, 2017, 05:11:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 17, 2017, 01:51:24 PM
That's an interesting graphic.  I'm surprised at how well the 26 (or should I say Dublin, Kildare & Munster) fare here.

of course GDP may overstate things a bit. However, this was 2014, things in Leinster and Munster have improved since then and NI will fall a bit as Sterling goes down the toilet.

Yup. GNP''s a more interesting number than GDP as far as the free state is concerned.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: seafoid on January 17, 2017, 05:45:58 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 17, 2017, 01:51:24 PM
That's an interesting graphic.  I'm surprised at how well the 26 (or should I say Dublin, Kildare & Munster) fare here.

of course GDP may overstate things a bit. However, this was 2014, things in Leinster and Munster have improved since then and NI will fall a bit as Sterling goes down the toilet.
The North has been going nowhere for years. It never recovered from.the war.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion
Post by: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 17, 2017, 05:09:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 17, 2017, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 17, 2017, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on January 09, 2017, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 08, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
I am not suggesting for one moment there was not widespread discrimination,gerrymandering in the North but I think its effects were over estimated.My parents were of the opinion that there was work of some description always for those who wanted it.As I've said before the middle classes of all hues were exempt from discrimination,Portadown like everywhere else always had its fair share of Catholic professionals and business people who started and grew businesses and lived in the leafy suburbs.

Much the same as the Protestant middle classes in the South I expect.

Seafoid there will be no hard Brexit,despite the bluster.As experienced commentator Alex Kane up here said last week,the Brexit will be so soft (assuming it goes ahead at all) that it will be unnoticeable
Well your Parents were wrong

It looks like Alex Kane was wrong too, unless the whole thing unravels, which is still a possibility.
Brexit is really f**king stupid so it may be revoked

Thatcherism has pauperised huge chunks of England and they reciprocated via a f**k off vote in favour of Brexit
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Gross_domestic_product_(GDP)_per_inhabitant_in_purchasing_power_standard_(PPS)_in_relation_to_the_EU-28_average,_by_NUTS_2_regions,_2014_(%C2%B9)_(%25_of_the_EU-28_average,_EU-28_%3D_100)_RYB2016.png

Jesus! And look at Germany. So much for reunification. The East is as impoverished as ever.

The whole thing is NUTS.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 18, 2017, 01:35:23 PM
Poland has caught up with Portugal. It will be interesting to see how the UK does going forward. Poland might catch up with it too
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 26, 2017, 07:55:27 PM
More Taigs
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/protestant-and-catholic-employment-rates-level-for-first-time-in-northern-ireland-35398733.html

Catholic professional employment now exceeds the Protestant, and this can only increase, so much so that any Protestant with a qualification will be in demand.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 26, 2017, 09:13:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 26, 2017, 07:55:27 PM
More Taigs
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/protestant-and-catholic-employment-rates-level-for-first-time-in-northern-ireland-35398733.html

Catholic professional employment now exceeds the Protestant, and this can only increase, so much so that any Protestant with a qualification will be in demand.
Are there any stats on Protestant emigration?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on February 12, 2017, 01:29:10 AM
Quote"The Good Friday agreement makes it abundantly clear that the fact that both parts of Ireland and the UK are within the EU is a basis for the agreement. Moreover, the fact that Brexit could result in the reintroduction of border controls and controls on the free movement of persons between Ireland and Northern Ireland means this is a question for the EU, and not only Ireland the UK."
This is from a memo from the European parliament's legal affairs committee, which is helping shape the negotiating position of the European commission and the red lines of the European parliament
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on March 06, 2017, 06:17:44 PM
The free state political parties delivered perhaps their most crass insult yet to Northern nationalists at the weekend,when they all ruled out going into government with Sinn Fein.Thats the same Sinn Fein who represent the vast majority of Northern nationalists.

As I have said ad nauseam, neither the London or Dublin governments care about the North,or see its people as their people.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 06, 2017, 06:36:19 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2017, 06:17:44 PM
The free state political parties delivered perhaps their most crass insult yet to Northern nationalists at the weekend,when they all ruled out going into government with Sinn Fein.Thats the same Sinn Fein who represent the vast majority of Northern nationalists.

As I have said ad nauseam, neither the London or Dublin governments care about the North,or see its people as their people.

What did they say
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 06, 2017, 07:01:26 PM
How does 26 Co parties not willing to enter a Coalition with 26 Co SF TDs deliver a crass insult to Nationalist people in the other 6 Cos? ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 06, 2017, 07:15:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2017, 06:17:44 PM
The free state political parties delivered perhaps their most crass insult yet to Northern nationalists at the weekend,when they all ruled out going into government with Sinn Fein.Thats the same Sinn Fein who represent the vast majority of Northern nationalists.

As I have said ad nauseam, neither the London or Dublin governments care about the North,or see its people as their people.

Perhaps this is based on the success of NI, sure you'd have to double public spending.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on March 06, 2017, 09:28:27 PM
SF are the mainstream voice of Northern Nationalism.It follows then that a calculated insult is offered to N Nationalists when all the main parties in the free state declare that they will not go into coalition with SF in the Dail.

Can you imagine one of the main British parties saying something similar about the DUP or UUP
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Horse Box on March 06, 2017, 09:47:01 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2017, 09:28:27 PM
SF are the mainstream voice of Northern Nationalism.It follows then that a calculated insult is offered to N Nationalists when all the main parties in the free state declare that they will not go into coalition with SF in the Dail.

Can you imagine one of the main British parties saying something similar about the DUP or UUP

It`s to do with their economic policies and still make an issue over the Provos every now and then but that`s getting less and less lately . It has nothing to do with insulting Nationalists :o ! What they say now and what happens after the next Election are 2 different things entirely !
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 06, 2017, 10:02:40 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2017, 06:17:44 PM
The free state political parties delivered perhaps their most crass insult yet to Northern nationalists at the weekend,when they all ruled out going into government with Sinn Fein.Thats the same Sinn Fein who represent the vast majority of Northern nationalists.

As I have said ad nauseam, neither the London or Dublin governments care about the North,or see its people as their people.

Or people living somewhere else maybe?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 06, 2017, 10:06:34 PM
The Indo is on board, giving the Tyrone perspective
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/martina-devlin-bring-in-the-dealmakers-its-time-to-knuckle-down-the-case-for-irish-reunification-is-overwhelming-35504764.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 06, 2017, 10:21:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 06, 2017, 10:06:34 PM
The Indo is on board, giving the Tyrone perspective
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/martina-devlin-bring-in-the-dealmakers-its-time-to-knuckle-down-the-case-for-irish-reunification-is-overwhelming-35504764.html

Is this from the independent's comedy section?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 07, 2017, 10:05:42 AM
Thought this was the proper thread to ask the question, but if there's a border poll and it turned out the union was secure, hasn't there to be one every seven years regardless?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on March 07, 2017, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 07, 2017, 10:05:42 AM
Thought this was the proper thread to ask the question, but if there's a border poll and it turned out the union was secure, hasn't there to be one every seven years regardless?
No common mistake it only means that another one cant be called within 7 yrs however as noted earlier pretty sure nationalists would be pushing for one every 7 yrs after all you only need to get lucky once.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on March 07, 2017, 10:15:04 AM
Arlene now wants one unionist party talk about circling the wagons. This will be another shot in the foot as sensible moderates will flood to Alliance Greens and SDLP. I really do think Arlene KELLY is some sort of SF agent
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Ball Hopper on March 07, 2017, 02:53:36 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on March 07, 2017, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 07, 2017, 10:05:42 AM
Thought this was the proper thread to ask the question, but if there's a border poll and it turned out the union was secure, hasn't there to be one every seven years regardless?
No common mistake it only means that another one cant be called within 7 yrs however as noted earlier pretty sure nationalists would be pushing for one every 7 yrs after all you only need to get lucky once.

Is there any possibility of the choice being made on a county-by-county basis?  Might have to rule out any enclave-type scenario I presume, but what counties currently would have strong majorities one way or the other?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2017, 05:13:42 PM
Quote from: Ball Hopper on March 07, 2017, 02:53:36 PM
Is there any possibility of the choice being made on a county-by-county basis?  Might have to rule out any enclave-type scenario I presume, but what counties currently would have strong majorities one way or the other?

No.

The Good Friday Agreement says it in black and white. It's all or nothing when it comes to a border poll. No more carving up of little enclaves to appease people who can't accept a democratic result.

In any case the "counties" haven't existed as local government entities since the 1970s.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ashman on March 07, 2017, 05:34:20 PM
The 7 year border poll will make NI utterly toxic for private investment .  Who would invest there with such uncertainty ??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on March 07, 2017, 06:26:14 PM
Unless the first border poll is quite close, it will be a lot longer than 7 years before the next one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on March 07, 2017, 06:54:53 PM
The GFA agreement compels both governments to consider the outcome of a border poll,and do what they agree is best.Thats a far cry from actually legislating for re unification in the event of a majority voting for this outcome.

By the way who is the Blueshirt Charles Flanagan representing at the Stormont talks tomorrow? Surely not Northern nationalists?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 07, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
When was the "binding obligation to introduce and support legislation"
deleted??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on March 07, 2017, 08:44:04 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2017, 06:54:53 PM
The GFA agreement compels both governments to consider the outcome of a border poll,and do what they agree is best.Thats a far cry from actually legislating for re unification in the event of a majority voting for this outcome.

By the way who is the Blueshirt Charles Flanagan representing at the Stormont talks tomorrow? Surely not Northern nationalists?

"But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern
Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a
united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such
proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of
Ireland."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on March 07, 2017, 08:51:28 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2017, 05:13:42 PM
The Good Friday Agreement says it in black and white. It's all or nothing when it comes to a border poll. No more carving up of little enclaves to appease people who can't accept a democratic result.

PMSL - Does this sound familiar Eamon ? ;)


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2017, 09:57:45 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on March 07, 2017, 08:51:28 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2017, 05:13:42 PM
The Good Friday Agreement says it in black and white. It's all or nothing when it comes to a border poll. No more carving up of little enclaves to appease people who can't accept a democratic result.

PMSL - Does this sound familiar Eamon ? ;)

Yeah. Reminds me of the Repukelicans who spent eight years whinging about having a black president.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 07, 2017, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on March 07, 2017, 08:51:28 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2017, 05:13:42 PM
The Good Friday Agreement says it in black and white. It's all or nothing when it comes to a border poll. No more carving up of little enclaves to appease people who can't accept a democratic result.

PMSL - Does this sound familiar Eamon ? ;)

Perhaps it should be decided by an electoral college. Each local authority could vote and decide how to designate its delegates?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on March 07, 2017, 10:07:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
When was the "binding obligation to introduce and support legislation"
deleted??
Nothing has been deleted, all those binding obligation are there.
Dec quoted the annex correctly, it's an add-on to the GFA , it does not change anything in the GFA.
Afaiu, the annex  attempts to add clarity  on how a majority vote to leave the UK would be put into effect in the British parliament.
The proposals put to parliament may be agreed upon by British and irish gov, that means it's not necessary that all parts of the proposals have to be agreed upon by both governments.
Regardless, the proposals will be put into effect by parliament
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on March 07, 2017, 10:22:57 PM
QuoteThe 7 year border poll will make NI utterly toxic for private investment .  Who would invest there with such uncertainty ??

NI isn't exactly a mecca for investors at the minute.  An overbloated civil service keeps the unemployment figures down, and massive handouts from the London governement and EU help to keep the lights on.  As for major industry, you'll go along way in NI before you find an Intel Fab, IBM plant, HP, Twitter, Facebook, Google offices etc. etc. etc. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 12:18:58 AM
To be fair, you won't see a whole lot of fabs in Silicon Valley nowadays either. That stuff's all in Taiwan.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ashman on March 08, 2017, 12:23:43 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 07, 2017, 10:22:57 PM
QuoteThe 7 year border poll will make NI utterly toxic for private investment .  Who would invest there with such uncertainty ??

NI isn't exactly a mecca for investors at the minute.  An overbloated civil service keeps the unemployment figures down, and massive handouts from the London governement and EU help to keep the lights on.  As for major industry, you'll go along way in NI before you find an Intel Fab, IBM plant, HP, Twitter, Facebook, Google offices etc. etc. etc.

Exactly .  The place is no go for investment .  Oddly enough the largest nationalist party is pragmatic in the north and  has Marxist utterings in the South .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Stall the Bailer on March 08, 2017, 07:46:02 AM
What about the likes of Citi bank, Moy Park, Allstate, Almac, Randox Norbrook, First Derivatives etc. A good few of them locally owned. Not as good as the south, but with the same potential all being equal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 08:41:14 AM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on March 08, 2017, 07:46:02 AM
What about the likes of Citi bank, Moy Park, Allstate, Almac, Randox Norbrook, First Derivatives etc. A good few of them locally owned. Not as good as the south, but with the same potential all being equal.

And Almac opening up a lab in Dundalk due to concerns over brexit....

The likes of Bombardier and FG Wilsons (Caterpillar) face an uncertain future will both going through several rounds of redundancies. I think I also hear that Caterpillar are to close their Monkstown plant shortly.

Citibank, Allstate and the likes can upsticks and move to the next investment hotspot quite quickly if the need arises and no doubt have cut quite lucrative deals with Invest NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 09:08:33 AM
Catapiller and bombardier are reducing there workforce worldwide as the global economy continues to slip
Michelin Left because n Irelands electricity rates are among the highest in Europe, the assembly did nothing of any merit to pressure PowerNI to reduce their commercial rates ( I blame stormont for this one)
JTM (formerly Gallahers) moved to Poland for cheaper labour rates and possibly the lower corporation tax



stormont was trying to swing a deal with Westminster for a corporation tax aligned with the south but couldn't survive on the reduced block grants as a result
The republic  economy has really beneifited from their corp tax rate
If the north could do the same, investment would flood in same as the south
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 09:08:33 AM
Catapiller and bombardier are reducing there workforce worldwide as the global economy continues to slip
Michelin the same reasons
JTM (formerly Gallahers) moved to Poland for cheaper labour rates and possibly the lower corporation tax

stormont was trying to swing a deal with Westminster for a corporation tax aligned with the south but couldn't survive on the reduced block grants as a result
The republic  economy has really beneifited from their corp tax rate
If the north could do the same, investment would flood in same as the south

Caterpillar have moved some stuff into China as well as suffering from a depressed market.

The Corp tax is one aspect of the solution, but in the North would we have enough highly trained staff to take on roles if the big corporations came calling? I'm not so sure.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Stall the Bailer on March 08, 2017, 09:17:37 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 08:41:14 AM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on March 08, 2017, 07:46:02 AM
What about the likes of Citi bank, Moy Park, Allstate, Almac, Randox Norbrook, First Derivatives etc. A good few of them locally owned. Not as good as the south, but with the same potential all being equal.


Citibank, Allstate and the likes can upsticks and move to the next investment hotspot quite quickly if the need arises and no doubt have cut quite lucrative deals with Invest NI.
How do they differ from IBM, Facebook, Apple, Intel in the south. Any multinational can up sticks. SMEs are what we need.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 09:38:01 AM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on March 08, 2017, 09:17:37 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 08:41:14 AM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on March 08, 2017, 07:46:02 AM
What about the likes of Citi bank, Moy Park, Allstate, Almac, Randox Norbrook, First Derivatives etc. A good few of them locally owned. Not as good as the south, but with the same potential all being equal.


Citibank, Allstate and the likes can upsticks and move to the next investment hotspot quite quickly if the need arises and no doubt have cut quite lucrative deals with Invest NI.
How do they differ from IBM, Facebook, Apple, Intel in the south. Any multinational can up sticks. SMEs are what we need.

They're not any different as we're now seeing with Hewlett Packard reducing its workforce in Kildare, but my point is that the north currently hasn't got a deep enough talent pool for any big employers to come in with high end jobs. The south does seem more capable of doing so.

There's only so many call centres you can set up and those jobs come and go with the wind.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2017, 09:40:03 AM
And when the farmers lose the cheques from Brussels.......
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on March 08, 2017, 09:58:29 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 09:38:01 AM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on March 08, 2017, 09:17:37 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 08:41:14 AM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on March 08, 2017, 07:46:02 AM
What about the likes of Citi bank, Moy Park, Allstate, Almac, Randox Norbrook, First Derivatives etc. A good few of them locally owned. Not as good as the south, but with the same potential all being equal.


Citibank, Allstate and the likes can upsticks and move to the next investment hotspot quite quickly if the need arises and no doubt have cut quite lucrative deals with Invest NI.
How do they differ from IBM, Facebook, Apple, Intel in the south. Any multinational can up sticks. SMEs are what we need.

They're not any different as we're now seeing with Hewlett Packard reducing its workforce in Kildare, but my point is that the north currently hasn't got a deep enough talent pool for any big employers to come in with high end jobs. The south does seem more capable of doing so.

There's only so many call centres you can set up and those jobs come and go with the wind.

Would disagree with that completely - the north has a highly educated work force - the talent pool would be there, not to mention the plenty from the north who would like to return but can't due to the lack of suitable high end jobs. Along side this, the south isn't miles away, even before a UI what makes you think some of that work force in the south wouldn't move north to service the jobs if they were there?

I don't think (well, I hope!) anyone thinks call centre jobs are good - they are set up here due to grants etc, and as you say will move somewhere else like the wind. I despair when I see Arlene or some other eejit posing proudly at the opening of another call centre which adds nothing long term.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 10:26:36 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 09:08:33 AM
Catapiller and bombardier are reducing there workforce worldwide as the global economy continues to slip
Michelin the same reasons
JTM (formerly Gallahers) moved to Poland for cheaper labour rates and possibly the lower corporation tax

stormont was trying to swing a deal with Westminster for a corporation tax aligned with the south but couldn't survive on the reduced block grants as a result
The republic  economy has really beneifited from their corp tax rate
If the north could do the same, investment would flood in same as the south

Caterpillar have moved some stuff into China as well as suffering from a depressed market.

The Corp tax is one aspect of the solution, but in the North would we have enough highly trained staff to take on roles if the big corporations came calling? I'm not so sure.

I would be confident in the Norths ability to provide a efficient and motivated workforce in any business sector
We can work as hard as anyone in Europe and it's widely excepted that our education system and graduates are better than any where else in the U.K.
Look at the success of company's like Kanos in the IT sector
I wouldn't have any worries in that regard
Personally I would have took the low corporation tax deal with reduced block grant
It would have pushed us further into economical and social decline for a few years but outside investment would have eventually kicked in
Imm not an economist but the proof is in how the south is doing even after the banking crisis and the subsequent austerity measures
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on March 08, 2017, 10:32:51 AM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 10:26:36 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 09:08:33 AM
Catapiller and bombardier are reducing there workforce worldwide as the global economy continues to slip
Michelin the same reasons
JTM (formerly Gallahers) moved to Poland for cheaper labour rates and possibly the lower corporation tax

stormont was trying to swing a deal with Westminster for a corporation tax aligned with the south but couldn't survive on the reduced block grants as a result
The republic  economy has really beneifited from their corp tax rate
If the north could do the same, investment would flood in same as the south

Caterpillar have moved some stuff into China as well as suffering from a depressed market.

The Corp tax is one aspect of the solution, but in the North would we have enough highly trained staff to take on roles if the big corporations came calling? I'm not so sure.

I would be confident in the Norths ability to provide a efficient and motivated workforce in any business sector
We can work as hard as anyone in Europe and it's widely excepted that our education system and graduates are better than any where else in the U.K.
Look at the success of company's like Kanos in the IT sector
I wouldn't have any worries in that regard
Personally I would have took the low corporation tax deal with reduced block grant
It would have pushed us further into economical and social decline for a few years but outside investment would have eventually kicked in
Imm not an economist but the proof is in how the south is doing even after the banking crisis and the subsequent austerity measures

I would agree with that... look at First Derivatives and the big 5 Accountancy firms. They hire NI staff to go work in London/New York and all the major financial centres because it's cheaper to pay an NI resident through an NI company than to hire someone who lives in those cities!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2017, 10:32:51 AM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 10:26:36 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 09:08:33 AM
Catapiller and bombardier are reducing there workforce worldwide as the global economy continues to slip
Michelin the same reasons
JTM (formerly Gallahers) moved to Poland for cheaper labour rates and possibly the lower corporation tax

stormont was trying to swing a deal with Westminster for a corporation tax aligned with the south but couldn't survive on the reduced block grants as a result
The republic  economy has really beneifited from their corp tax rate
If the north could do the same, investment would flood in same as the south

Caterpillar have moved some stuff into China as well as suffering from a depressed market.

The Corp tax is one aspect of the solution, but in the North would we have enough highly trained staff to take on roles if the big corporations came calling? I'm not so sure.

I would be confident in the Norths ability to provide a efficient and motivated workforce in any business sector
We can work as hard as anyone in Europe and it's widely excepted that our education system and graduates are better than any where else in the U.K.
Look at the success of company's like Kanos in the IT sector
I wouldn't have any worries in that regard
Personally I would have took the low corporation tax deal with reduced block grant
It would have pushed us further into economical and social decline for a few years but outside investment would have eventually kicked in
Imm not an economist but the proof is in how the south is doing even after the banking crisis and the subsequent austerity measures

I would agree with that... look at First Derivatives and the big 5 Accountancy firms. They hire NI staff to go work in London/New York and all the major financial centres because it's cheaper to pay an NI resident through an NI company than to hire someone who lives in those cities!!

Yip,
NI is a "low cost region" to a lot of multinationals.

Well educated and trained personnel will find work in NI, its the lower end who leave school with very little education to speak of where jobs are lacking and they need brought into the economic fold rather than being a burden..

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 08, 2017, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: ashman on March 07, 2017, 05:34:20 PM
The 7 year border poll will make NI utterly toxic for private investment .  Who would invest there with such uncertainty ??
My understanding is that once held a border poll has to be held every 7 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 08, 2017, 12:44:49 PM
If you just listen to the DUP and loyalists from East Belfast talking about taking to the streets and nationalists have only won an election. Put a UI on the table how will they react. Its a parody but Loyalists are definitely against democracy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on March 08, 2017, 12:53:18 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2017, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: ashman on March 07, 2017, 05:34:20 PM
The 7 year border poll will make NI utterly toxic for private investment .  Who would invest there with such uncertainty ??
My understanding is that once held a border poll has to be held every 7 years.

Na...this is a very good article on the legal side of it

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/02/26/a-border-poll-can-be-held-at-any-time/


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 01:11:04 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2017, 10:32:51 AM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 10:26:36 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 08, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 09:08:33 AM
Catapiller and bombardier are reducing there workforce worldwide as the global economy continues to slip
Michelin the same reasons
JTM (formerly Gallahers) moved to Poland for cheaper labour rates and possibly the lower corporation tax

stormont was trying to swing a deal with Westminster for a corporation tax aligned with the south but couldn't survive on the reduced block grants as a result
The republic  economy has really beneifited from their corp tax rate
If the north could do the same, investment would flood in same as the south

Caterpillar have moved some stuff into China as well as suffering from a depressed market.

The Corp tax is one aspect of the solution, but in the North would we have enough highly trained staff to take on roles if the big corporations came calling? I'm not so sure.

I would be confident in the Norths ability to provide a efficient and motivated workforce in any business sector
We can work as hard as anyone in Europe and it's widely excepted that our education system and graduates are better than any where else in the U.K.
Look at the success of company's like Kanos in the IT sector
I wouldn't have any worries in that regard
Personally I would have took the low corporation tax deal with reduced block grant
It would have pushed us further into economical and social decline for a few years but outside investment would have eventually kicked in
Imm not an economist but the proof is in how the south is doing even after the banking crisis and the subsequent austerity measures

I would agree with that... look at First Derivatives and the big 5 Accountancy firms. They hire NI staff to go work in London/New York and all the major financial centres because it's cheaper to pay an NI resident through an NI company than to hire someone who lives in those cities!!

Yip,
NI is a "low cost region" to a lot of multinationals.

Well educated and trained personnel will find work in NI, its the lower end who leave school with very little education to speak of where jobs are lacking and they need brought into the economic fold rather than being a burden..

That's the other attraction of low corp tax for lower end education folks
Manufacturing facilities have to be based in the south to qualify
Never mind your intel and the like the south has every big player in the pharmaceutical industry there and they create a lot of jobs and wealth across the employment spectrum
Apart from Ireland the only other low corp tax countries are the eastern block ones in Europe and they don't have as good employee resources as here

Imm sure a well informed economist could throw up counter arguments but your can't argue with what the southern tax policy has done to there GDP
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 01:19:19 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2017, 12:44:49 PM
If you just listen to the DUP and loyalists from East Belfast talking about taking to the streets and nationalists have only won an election. Put a UI on the table how will they react. Its a parody but Loyalists are definitely against democracy.

The minute a UI looks as if it could become a reality there will be a price to pay
In that regard. The transition would have to be slow and subtle to minimise the backlash
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on March 08, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
Today the Blueshirt Flanagan is allegedly representing Northern Nationalism at Stormont.Do you trust him? In recent days Adams has referred to Paisleys remarks to Mc Guinness back.in 07 "We dont need Englishmen to rule us". Why do Sinn Fein think we need freestaters then?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 08, 2017, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
Today the Blueshirt Flanagan is allegedly representing Northern Nationalism at Stormont.Do you trust him? In recent days Adams has referred to Paisleys remarks to Mc Guinness back.in 07 "We dont need Englishmen to rule us". Why do Sinn Fein think we need freestaters then?

Why don't you declare Poyntzpass independent then?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Donagh on March 08, 2017, 01:50:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
Today the Blueshirt Flanagan is allegedly representing Northern Nationalism at Stormont.Do you trust him? In recent days Adams has referred to Paisleys remarks to Mc Guinness back.in 07 "We dont need Englishmen to rule us". Why do Sinn Fein think we need freestaters then?

Flanagan represents no one other than the southern government who have a legal duty to be there, though it's hard to tell considering he has to be dragged kicking and screaming over the border.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on March 08, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 01:19:19 PM

The minute a UI looks as if it could become a reality there will be a price to pay
In that regard. The transition would have to be slow and subtle to minimise the backlash

Think I've said this here before, but potentially its northern nationalists who would lose most in a UI. Not difficult to foresee one route it would go - new flag, new anthem, and tons of investment into loyalist areas to ward off trouble and show them they belong. Nationalists left wondering what it was all for. In the short term at least.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on March 08, 2017, 01:55:09 PM
Exactly.Orange parades everywhere as well.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on March 08, 2017, 02:01:16 PM
There'd be a completely different context to those - stripped of the triumphalism not sure they'd be as fervently supported.

A UI is the best option socially, economically, and politically, I'm jut pointing out it may not take the form we expect. I think most who want a UI actually want an invasion  :D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2017, 02:37:13 PM
As I've pointed out over the years you'll see 2 semi autonomous regions - current 6 and 26 Co areas with a Confederation of the 2 as the All Ireland entity.
There will be a Confederation flag and anthem.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2017, 02:55:02 PM
NI failed in 1969. It has been limping along since. Stormont used to have a Prime Minister but it never will again.

Things have changed a lot since Louis MacNeice's day. He was an ulster protestant
https://apoemforireland.rte.ie/shortlist/dublin/

This never was my town,
I was not born or bred
Nor schooled here and she will not
Have me alive or dead
But yet she holds my mind
With her seedy elegance,
With her gentle veils of rain
And all her ghosts that walk
And all that hide behind
Her Georgian facades –
The catcalls and the pain,
The glamour of her squalor,
The bravado of her talk.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on March 08, 2017, 03:57:57 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2017, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: ashman on March 07, 2017, 05:34:20 PM
The 7 year border poll will make NI utterly toxic for private investment .  Who would invest there with such uncertainty ??
My understanding is that once held a border poll has to be held every 7 years.

No, the 7 years refers to the minimum gap between polls.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 03:58:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2017, 02:37:13 PM
As I've pointed out over the years you'll see 2 semi autonomous regions - current 6 and 26 Co areas with a Confederation of the 2 as the All Ireland entity.
There will be a Confederation flag and anthem.

Isn't the utopia I had in mind
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on March 08, 2017, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2017, 02:37:13 PM
As I've pointed out over the years you'll see 2 semi autonomous regions - current 6 and 26 Co areas with a Confederation of the 2 as the All Ireland entity.
There will be a Confederation flag and anthem.
The vote won't be for a confederation. It will be for a United Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2017, 06:42:06 PM
Is Switzerland a United Country?
Germany?
Canada?
There will be negotiations following a successful ( from our point of view) vote and an outcome. There will have to be arrangements for the "6Cos British", the rights enshrined in the GFA will have to be maintained.
It won't be the 6 Cos simply being incorporated into the 26.
It won't be some narrow minded Sinn Féin state either.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

Well if this arrangement placates all sides and gets British involvement out its a start

How is this new state gonna be funded
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on March 08, 2017, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

This gives Sinn Fein a double win. A United Ireland & the ruling party in the six counties. The Unionists and Loyalists would have a better existince in a 32 county U.I. than under a S.F controlled enclave.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 07:34:24 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 08, 2017, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

This gives Sinn Fein a double win. A United Ireland & the ruling party in the six counties. The Unionists and Loyalists would have a better existince in a 32 county U.I. than under a S.F controlled enclave.

Would Sinn Fein be the majority party north and south combined in a UI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 08, 2017, 08:07:34 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 07:34:24 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 08, 2017, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

This gives Sinn Fein a double win. A United Ireland & the ruling party in the six counties. The Unionists and Loyalists would have a better existince in a 32 county U.I. than under a S.F controlled enclave.

Would Sinn Fein be the majority party north and south combined in a UI

Of course not, although it might have some chance of being the biggest party. It would soon lose vote share in the former 6 counties though, when people considered its (im)practical policies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 08:28:29 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 08, 2017, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

This gives Sinn Fein a double win. A United Ireland & the ruling party in the six counties. The Unionists and Loyalists would have a better existince in a 32 county U.I. than under a S.F controlled enclave.

I happen to be in favour of keeping power sharing in place in the north after reunification.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 08, 2017, 08:46:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 08:28:29 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 08, 2017, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

This gives Sinn Fein a double win. A United Ireland & the ruling party in the six counties. The Unionists and Loyalists would have a better existince in a 32 county U.I. than under a S.F controlled enclave.

I happen to be in favour of keeping power sharing in place in the north after reunification.

Necessary evil to placate unionists and let them retain some semblance of power. Also provide them with a minimum number of seats in the Seanad. However I'd like to see it on a 9 county Ulster basis, or with four small provincial assemblies with very limited powers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 09:16:34 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 08, 2017, 08:46:13 PM
Necessary evil to placate unionists and let them retain some semblance of power.

Exactly. Leave it in place for a generation and it becomes obsolete. Then quietly take out the power sharing.

Quote
However I'd like to see it on a 9 county Ulster basis, or with four small provincial assemblies with very limited powers.

Why? I don't see any need for an extra layer of local government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 08, 2017, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 09:16:34 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 08, 2017, 08:46:13 PM
Necessary evil to placate unionists and let them retain some semblance of power.

Exactly. Leave it in place for a generation and it becomes obsolete. Then quietly take out the power sharing.

Quote
However I'd like to see it on a 9 county Ulster basis, or with four small provincial assemblies with very limited powers.

Why? I don't see any need for an extra layer of local government.

Because then the north doesn't feel like a special statelet but I suppose, as you say, better to let it fade out over the course of a couple of generations.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 09:46:11 PM
I don't see any harm in keeping it like a Hong Kong style special administrative area.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 08, 2017, 09:58:59 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

Well if this arrangement placates all sides and gets British involvement out its a start

How is this new state gonna be funded
At least one of you can see the big fat elephant in the room
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on March 08, 2017, 10:29:32 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 08, 2017, 09:58:59 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

Well if this arrangement placates all sides and gets British involvement out its a start

How is this new state gonna be funded
At least one of you can see the big fat elephant in the room

Well for a start you could sell loads of property in the north to a U.S. company at a cut price. Oh wait, youv'e already done that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 08, 2017, 10:38:13 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 08, 2017, 09:58:59 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

Well if this arrangement placates all sides and gets British involvement out its a start

How is this new state gonna be funded
At least one of you can see the big fat elephant in the room

None so blind, as those who will not see: Reunification Economic Windfall (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 08, 2017, 10:29:32 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 08, 2017, 09:58:59 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

Well if this arrangement placates all sides and gets British involvement out its a start

How is this new state gonna be funded
At least one of you can see the big fat elephant in the room

Well for a start you could sell loads of property in the north to a U.S. company at a cut price. Oh wait, youv'e already done that.

I think if you do your homework there's a bit of that going on further south as well

Funding is gonna be a big factor having that said Imm fed up with people from the republic coming out with "we can't afford you" as a lazy Unresearched excuse for the status quo
Britain is leaking 80 odd million a year in deficit terms contributing to their 1.5 trillion debt
I can't believe N Ireland is responsible 9 of that even with a top heavy civil service
Would love to see some real figures and how much GB would contribute anualy and for how long just to get shot of us once and for all
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2017, 11:21:42 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 08, 2017, 09:58:59 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with Stormont being retained in its present form as a regional assembly within a UI.

Well if this arrangement placates all sides and gets British involvement out its a start

How is this new state gonna be funded
At least one of you can see the big fat elephant in the room
Same way as all States are funded - by the people who live in it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 08, 2017, 11:24:58 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 PM
Funding is gonna be a big factor having that said Imm fed up with people from the republic coming out with "we can't afford you" as a lazy Unresearched excuse for the status quo
Britain is leaking 80 odd million a year in deficit terms contributing to their 1.5 trillion debt
I can't believe N Ireland is responsible 9 of that even with a top heavy civil service
Would love to see some real figures and how much GB would contribute anualy and for how long just to get shot of us once and for all

It is hardly unreasoned. After having what had been the most prosperous part of the country at partition, the British should not be allowed hand it over in rag order so that Irish people have to fix it up.
However I would like to see the calculations, NI is supposed to have a lot of public expenditure, yet services are not all that stellar. Where exactly does the money go? I suspect the problem is on the other side of the balance sheet, in that no enough tax is collected.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 11:37:05 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 08, 2017, 11:24:58 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 PM
Funding is gonna be a big factor having that said Imm fed up with people from the republic coming out with "we can't afford you" as a lazy Unresearched excuse for the status quo
Britain is leaking 80 odd million a year in deficit terms contributing to their 1.5 trillion debt
I can't believe N Ireland is responsible 9 of that even with a top heavy civil service
Would love to see some real figures and how much GB would contribute anualy and for how long just to get shot of us once and for all

It is hardly unreasoned. After having what had been the most prosperous part of the country at partition, the British should not be allowed hand it over in rag order so that Irish people have to fix it up.
However I would like to see the calculations, NI is supposed to have a lot of public expenditure, yet services are not all that stellar. Where exactly does the money go? I suspect the problem is on the other side of the balance sheet, in that no enough tax is collected.

Yes I agree and we can't blame it all on you lads in Armagh
You can only wash so much Deisel, definitely not 9 billion a year😃😃
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Take Your Points on March 09, 2017, 11:20:36 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 08, 2017, 11:24:58 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 08, 2017, 10:43:26 PM
Funding is gonna be a big factor having that said Imm fed up with people from the republic coming out with "we can't afford you" as a lazy Unresearched excuse for the status quo
Britain is leaking 80 odd million a year in deficit terms contributing to their 1.5 trillion debt
I can't believe N Ireland is responsible 9 of that even with a top heavy civil service
Would love to see some real figures and how much GB would contribute anualy and for how long just to get shot of us once and for all

It is hardly unreasoned. After having what had been the most prosperous part of the country at partition, the British should not be allowed hand it over in rag order so that Irish people have to fix it up.
However I would like to see the calculations, NI is supposed to have a lot of public expenditure, yet services are not all that stellar. Where exactly does the money go? I suspect the problem is on the other side of the balance sheet, in that no enough tax is collected.

Correct.  As the public sector is the major employer the tax revenue is simply recycled.  The pay bill for the public sector must be huge.

Govt pays public sector employees and retains at least 30% of this amount in direct taxes.  These employees spend their money and a significant portion trickles back to govt via indirect taxes such as rates, VAT and duties on goods.  Business rates are a significant source of income in GB, about 4% or £25bn pa.  In N.Ireland this is a very small return. Corporation tax makes a poor return and this is seen by proposals to cut it were only going to cost £200m pa to block grant. The benefits system also allows some degree of recycling of payments.

Then there is the NHS, which could never be replicated or maintained in a UI situation given its scope and service provision and that does not begin to look at the cost of the social care provision we currently have regardless of how bad we might consider it to be.

To replace a block grant of £10bn, it would require a huge tax recovery from the private sector which it could never sustain because it is so small compared to the public sector in terms of its industrial out and pay to its employees.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 09, 2017, 02:01:02 PM
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 09, 2017, 11:20:36 AM
Correct.  As the public sector is the major employer the tax revenue is simply recycled.  The pay bill for the public sector must be huge.

My question was, what exactly do these people do extra that other places do not have?

QuoteThen there is the NHS, which could never be replicated or maintained in a UI situation given its scope and service provision and that does not begin to look at the cost of the social care provision we currently have regardless of how bad we might consider it to be.

Health is only one part of expenditure, it is the ability to afford the overall envelope that is the problem, not the details of one thing or the other.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on March 09, 2017, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 09, 2017, 02:01:02 PM


My question was, what exactly do these people do extra that other places do not have?



We are a post conflict statelet governed by Local Authorities, the GFA, Cross Community Boards,Cross Border Bodies, The Assembly, West Minster and the EU. There's a lot of paper work to get through.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Take Your Points on March 09, 2017, 02:40:20 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 09, 2017, 02:01:02 PM
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 09, 2017, 11:20:36 AM
Correct.  As the public sector is the major employer the tax revenue is simply recycled.  The pay bill for the public sector must be huge.

My question was, what exactly do these people do extra that other places do not have?

QuoteThen there is the NHS, which could never be replicated or maintained in a UI situation given its scope and service provision and that does not begin to look at the cost of the social care provision we currently have regardless of how bad we might consider it to be.

Health is only one part of expenditure, it is the ability to afford the overall envelope that is the problem, not the details of one thing or the other.

We have 1.8 million people and we have three layers of government, local councils, local assembly, UK parliament in any other UK region this would be reduced to 2 layers, councils and parliament.  Taking just two areas of health and education you can see complexities:

In health, we have 6 health trusts with an overarching board (5 regions and one for ambulance service) and then a Dept of Health in Stormont.

In education, we have had some reduction but this hasn't made a huge difference. Dept of Education oversees Education Authority which oversees all controlled schools and maintained schools but CCMS still is the employing authority for Catholic maintained schools.  Dept of Education still administers voluntary grammars and integrated schools.

In GB a metropolitan council would run everything we have in N.Ireland for even more people, e.g. Manchester 2.6m people.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on March 09, 2017, 02:54:59 PM
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 09, 2017, 02:40:20 PM

In GB a metropolitan council would run everything we have in N.Ireland for even more people, e.g. Manchester 2.6m people.

That stat need more detail to be compared. Geography, demographics, industry etc

For example, it's cheaper and more streamlined having 1000 people working in a bank than 1000 farmers on their own farms.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 07:39:45 AM
According to the Irish Times, Fianna Fail are working on a plan for a United Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hardy on March 13, 2017, 09:11:48 AM
So is Theresa May. She calls it Brexit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 13, 2017, 09:23:21 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 07:39:45 AM
According to the Irish Times, Fianna Fail are working on a plan for a United Ireland.
Merge with the DUP and fill all their friends'  pockets??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on March 13, 2017, 01:56:38 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 13, 2017, 09:11:48 AM
So is Theresa May. She calls it Brexit.

;D ;D

The DUP will rue the day that they campaigned in favour of Brexit as now we learn today that another Scottish independence referendum has been called. Which would only highlight the idiocy of partition in the north. It's high time that the Irish government and political class begun to present a clear vision to the people of how a reunified country will function. Enda Kenny has shown little leadership on this issue.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
The link between a United Ireland and brexit needs to be explained. Presumably everyone accepts that there are segments of the NI electorate that are firmly in the UI or UK camps and will not be swayed by rational economic arguments. I do not doubt that brexit will be harmful to the NI economy. But for it to play a part in convincing the floating voter to switch from UK to UI then someone is going to have to make the argument that leaving a free trading area that you export £14 Bn to to rejoin a trading area that you export half as much to isn't going to harm the NI economy. Good luck to them. And that's before we get into the subvention
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 13, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
The link between a United Ireland and brexit needs to be explained. Presumably everyone accepts that there are segments of the NI electorate that are firmly in the UI or UK camps and will not be swayed by rational economic arguments. I do not doubt that brexit will be harmful to the NI economy. But for it to play a part in convincing the floating voter to switch from UK to UI then someone is going to have to make the argument that leaving a free trading area that you export £14 Bn to to rejoin a trading area that you export half as much to isn't going to harm the NI economy. Good luck to them. And that's before we get into the subvention

A lot of this depends on the nature of the businesses concerned, aggregates are not much use in explaining things.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
The link between a United Ireland and brexit needs to be explained. Presumably everyone accepts that there are segments of the NI electorate that are firmly in the UI or UK camps and will not be swayed by rational economic arguments. I do not doubt that brexit will be harmful to the NI economy. But for it to play a part in convincing the floating voter to switch from UK to UI then someone is going to have to make the argument that leaving a free trading area that you export £14 Bn to to rejoin a trading area that you export half as much to isn't going to harm the NI economy. Good luck to them. And that's before we get into the subvention
standard of living will be the deciding factor
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
The link between a United Ireland and brexit needs to be explained. Presumably everyone accepts that there are segments of the NI electorate that are firmly in the UI or UK camps and will not be swayed by rational economic arguments. I do not doubt that brexit will be harmful to the NI economy. But for it to play a part in convincing the floating voter to switch from UK to UI then someone is going to have to make the argument that leaving a free trading area that you export £14 Bn to to rejoin a trading area that you export half as much to isn't going to harm the NI economy. Good luck to them. And that's before we get into the subvention
standard of living will be the deciding factor

Hard to see how that is going to point towards a UI vote
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 13, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
The link between a United Ireland and brexit needs to be explained. Presumably everyone accepts that there are segments of the NI electorate that are firmly in the UI or UK camps and will not be swayed by rational economic arguments. I do not doubt that brexit will be harmful to the NI economy. But for it to play a part in convincing the floating voter to switch from UK to UI then someone is going to have to make the argument that leaving a free trading area that you export £14 Bn to to rejoin a trading area that you export half as much to isn't going to harm the NI economy. Good luck to them. And that's before we get into the subvention


A lot of this depends on the nature of the businesses concerned, aggregates are not much use in explaining things.

You are correct to look for the detail and no doubt it will come out. I don't have a precise breakdown of NI trade with the EU (excluding current U.K. Trade) and the same detail of trade with the rest of the UK but the chances of the split of the 2 trades overcoming the fact that one is more than double the other is very low indeed. And again this is before the subventions. Taking the 2 combined the chances of a UI within the EU being a better bet for NI than being in the UK look to be precisely Zero. But I'm prejudging the detail. Bring them on
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 13, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
The link between a United Ireland and brexit needs to be explained. Presumably everyone accepts that there are segments of the NI electorate that are firmly in the UI or UK camps and will not be swayed by rational economic arguments. I do not doubt that brexit will be harmful to the NI economy. But for it to play a part in convincing the floating voter to switch from UK to UI then someone is going to have to make the argument that leaving a free trading area that you export £14 Bn to to rejoin a trading area that you export half as much to isn't going to harm the NI economy. Good luck to them. And that's before we get into the subvention
Trade is just one aspect.
Border areas should see economic development. The money from London will probably be cut. Sterling will probably fall.


A lot of this depends on the nature of the businesses concerned, aggregates are not much use in explaining things.

You are correct to look for the detail and no doubt it will come out. I don't have a precise breakdown of NI trade with the EU (excluding current U.K. Trade) and the same detail of trade with the rest of the UK but the chances of the split of the 2 trades overcoming the fact that one is more than double the other. And again this before the subventions. Taking the 2 combined the chances of a UI within the EU being a better bet for NI than being in the UK look to be precisely Zero. But I'm prejudging the detail. Bring them on
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 07:42:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
The link between a United Ireland and brexit needs to be explained. Presumably everyone accepts that there are segments of the NI electorate that are firmly in the UI or UK camps and will not be swayed by rational economic arguments. I do not doubt that brexit will be harmful to the NI economy. But for it to play a part in convincing the floating voter to switch from UK to UI then someone is going to have to make the argument that leaving a free trading area that you export £14 Bn to to rejoin a trading area that you export half as much to isn't going to harm the NI economy. Good luck to them. And that's before we get into the subvention
standard of living will be the deciding factor

Hard to see how that is going to point towards a UI vote
Wait until the doom loop of Brexit, Sterling,  the UK trade deficit, budget deficit and productivity hits.
The UK economy is running on fumes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 08:05:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 07:42:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 13, 2017, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
The link between a United Ireland and brexit needs to be explained. Presumably everyone accepts that there are segments of the NI electorate that are firmly in the UI or UK camps and will not be swayed by rational economic arguments. I do not doubt that brexit will be harmful to the NI economy. But for it to play a part in convincing the floating voter to switch from UK to UI then someone is going to have to make the argument that leaving a free trading area that you export £14 Bn to to rejoin a trading area that you export half as much to isn't going to harm the NI economy. Good luck to them. And that's before we get into the subvention
standard of living will be the deciding factor

Hard to see how that is going to point towards a UI vote
Wait until the doom loop of Brexit, Sterling,  the UK trade deficit, budget deficit and productivity hits.
The UK economy is running on fumes.

UK economy has real problems. Serious structural ones that predate but are not helped by the decision to leave the EU. NI in the grand scheme of things is an irritant to the treasury. But not one that keeps them awake at night. The problems ROI has are again many fold but not least one of scale. When tackling a problem like NI an economy like ROI would sink without trace
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 13, 2017, 08:13:04 PM
And when does "NI" start trying to improve their own economy?
Or do ye all prefer to be basket cases?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:56:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 13, 2017, 08:13:04 PM
And when does "NI" start trying to improve their own economy?
Or do ye all prefer to be basket cases?

This is how much N.I. a basket case.

Gross Disposable Household Income estimate for Northern Ireland for 2014 was £26,953 million or £14,645 per head of population 

N. Ireland GDHI per head of population is 81.5 per cent of the corresponding UK figure and the lowest of the UK regions

N. Ireland's total GDHI grew by 0.2 per cent compared 1.3 per cent for the UK as a whole
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Getting harder again for Armaghniac. Exports to EU Only 38% of the GB value
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 13, 2017, 08:13:04 PM
And when does "NI" start trying to improve their own economy?
Or do ye all prefer to be basket cases?

It's started. Just making a shit job of it. Stupid short sighted electorate electing stupid short sighted politicians. We will be someone's expensive date for a long time. Will the good people of Roscommon step up?

I should warn you. The numbers are rubbish
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 09:09:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Getting harder again for Armaghniac. Exports to EU Only 38% of the GB value

This why N.I. is a basket case, it does not produce enough to create true wealth.  Look at how much circulates within the country - 66% of all product and services provided by companies.  Add this to almost 70% employment in the public sector and you have a region that cannot support itself and requires major intervention to exist under its current standards of living.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 13, 2017, 09:24:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Getting harder again for Armaghniac. Exports to EU Only 38% of the GB value

My point is two fold. The composition of trade may be different, some types of trade, some products,  may be very much affected, some little at all. But the issue is the political future of NI, if May/Arlene succeed in blighting border areas and increasing the subsidy then NI will be a very unstable place as the GFA will have been shredded.
But nobody wants a hard Brexit and then a UI poll, we want as little change as possible and a continuation of the systems introduced in 1998.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 10:34:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 13, 2017, 09:24:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Getting harder again for Armaghniac. Exports to EU Only 38% of the GB value

My point is two fold. The composition of trade may be different, some types of trade, some products,  may be very much affected, some little at all. But the issue is the political future of NI, if May/Arlene succeed in blighting border areas and increasing the subsidy then NI will be a very unstable place as the GFA will have been shredded.
But nobody wants a hard Brexit and then a UI poll, we want as little change as possible and a continuation of the systems introduced in 1998.

Your first point seems to be that there may, if certain things were true, be the whiff of a hint of rumour of a whisper of a prospect of the potentiality of an argument that might in certain circumstances be suggestive of a point. I'll come back to you when you firm that one up a bit.

Your second point seems a bit sensationalist. Who is shredding the GFA?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Olly on March 13, 2017, 10:42:55 PM
See if there's a United Ireland? What will we vote for after that? If Ireland is free are the Wolfe Tones banjaxed?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 13, 2017, 11:32:49 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 13, 2017, 08:13:04 PM
And when does "NI" start trying to improve their own economy?
Or do ye all prefer to be basket cases?

It's started. Just making a shit job of it. Stupid short sighted electorate electing stupid short sighted politicians. We will be someone's expensive date for a long time. Will the good people of Roscommon step up?


We'd be fair oul basket cases ourselves.
But th'oul cheques from Brussels keep the farmers spending a few €s so we won't sink anyway.
I can't see a Tory Brexited GB or EnglandWales doing much for 6 Cos farmers.
Maybe we can put ye up as Refugees in Ballaghaderreen  :-\
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 13, 2017, 11:34:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 10:34:10 PM
Your first point seems to be that there may, if certain things were true, be the whiff of a hint of rumour of a whisper of a prospect of the potentiality of an argument that might in certain circumstances be suggestive of a point. I'll come back to you when you firm that one up a bit.

I do not have detailed data on NI trade. Presumably those who support Brexit do, for instance what is the import content of that trade?

QuoteYour second point seems a bit sensationalist. Who is shredding the GFA?

If the British government wreck relations between both parts of Ireland without the agreement of either part, then that is shredding the GFA and indeed is a complete a negation of supposed Anglo-Irish cooperation for the last 32 years. No description of such a complete reversal of the mechanisms that have brought peace could be characterised by any reasonable person as sensational.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 14, 2017, 01:59:06 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 13, 2017, 09:24:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 13, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Getting harder again for Armaghniac. Exports to EU Only 38% of the GB value

My point is two fold. The composition of trade may be different, some types of trade, some products,  may be very much affected, some little at all. But the issue is the political future of NI, if May/Arlene succeed in blighting border areas and increasing the subsidy then NI will be a very unstable place as the GFA will have been shredded.
But nobody wants a hard Brexit and then a UI poll, we want as little change as possible and a continuation of the systems introduced in 1998.
It's not about what people want. The UK government is under the control of an ideological rump with no care for the UK economy.  Reason doesn't get a look in. They are prepared to smash political arrangements for the sake of the ideology. John van Renten estimates Brexit will reduce UK GDP by 10%.  NI is particularly vulnerable . And the Queen will not stand up for her loyal subjects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2zvWbrv-CY
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 14, 2017, 01:51:50 PM
It comes as no surprise to anyone that Sinn Fein are so tone-deaf and foolish that they'd call for a United Ireland referendum a few months after polls put stay on 62% and leave on 22%, and a week after not even winning more seats than a unionist party headed up by someone who can't write basic legislation correctly.

Embarrassing. It might have had some impact if they'd waited until it was even a remote possibility. To do it when the Assembly is in taters and further sow seeds of sectarianism is selfish in the extreme.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on March 14, 2017, 02:26:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 14, 2017, 01:51:50 PM
It comes as no surprise to anyone that Sinn Fein are so tone-deaf and foolish that they'd call for a United Ireland referendum a few months after polls put stay on 62% and leave on 22%, and a week after not even winning more seats than a unionist party headed up by someone who can't write basic legislation correctly.

Embarrassing. It might have had some impact if they'd waited until it was even a remote possibility. To do it when the Assembly is in taters and further sow seeds of sectarianism is selfish in the extreme.

The institutions of a failed gerrymandered sectarian statelet are in tatters, the SF agenda is Irish Unity and they are entitled to call for a border poll any time they like, its not their fault Unionism has spent the best part of a century trying to demonise Catholics and Republicans. Funny how when that status quo changed they become less and less comfortable in their occupied lands. Can you reference the sowing of seeds of sectarianism? Any reference of SF referring to Protestants will do.

All is well in the shires of Roscommon though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 14, 2017, 02:29:15 PM
What are "shires of Roscommon"??
Syfīn - you might take a look at the first preference figures in the Stormont Elections thread.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on March 14, 2017, 02:32:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 14, 2017, 02:29:15 PM
What are "shires of Roscommon"??
Syfīn - you might take a look at the first preference figures in the Stormont Elections thread.

We've been through this lad - a demilitarised zone for quislings.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 14, 2017, 02:35:27 PM
And you expect us to join with insulting extremist arseholes :o
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on March 14, 2017, 03:17:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 14, 2017, 02:35:27 PM
And you expect us to join with insulting extremist arseholes :o

Yeah I know mad isn't it - you wouldn't be seen dead with 900,000 Unionsits about the place!!

Happy enough down about the shires like. Nice and demilitarised.

Good for rearing families and the like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 14, 2017, 04:56:53 PM
A really classy act - speaking to a virtually empty European parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39269305?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39269305?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 14, 2017, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 14, 2017, 04:56:53 PM
A really classy act - speaking to a virtually empty European parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39269305?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39269305?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland)

An idiot of the highest order.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 14, 2017, 05:04:47 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 14, 2017, 04:56:53 PM
A really classy act - speaking to a virtually empty European parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39269305?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39269305?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland)

SF in the North has a talent deficit. There are half a dozen SF people in the 26 counties who are pretty effective, and above anyone in the wee 6.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on March 14, 2017, 05:15:06 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 14, 2017, 02:35:27 PM
And you expect us to join with insulting extremist arseholes :o

I think you are arguing with Martinas speech writer there!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on March 14, 2017, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Source?

I hate to point out the obvious but £98.4 Billion is the actual total of those numbers not £ 66.7 billion...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 14, 2017, 06:08:48 PM
Quote from: heganboy on March 14, 2017, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Source?

I hate to point out the obvious but £98.4 Billion is the actual total of those numbers not £ 66.7 billion...

No doubt because some of them are components of the other? There are only two figures to add, inside NI £43.7 and outside NI £23.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 14, 2017, 06:47:14 PM
If there ever is a UI it will be a political decision between the uk and the ROI, which no doubt will involve the Uk and possibly the EU underwriting the economy to a point that it can stand alone, this will have long term benefits and savings for the UK. I have not seen a serious independent report on the economic case for a UI. All these calls for a poll at the moment are premature as a majority of nationalists remain unconvinced. The whining belligerent speech by Martina Anderson in the European Parliament will achieve nothing except confirming that she is a fool.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AhNowRef on March 14, 2017, 06:50:13 PM
If Brexit does end up being a "complete" disaster it may entice a lot of middle of the road Nationalist voters and pragmatic Unionist voters in NI to take a side....

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/brexit-drives-registration-of-100-000-uk-firms-in-ireland-1.2985509

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 14, 2017, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 14, 2017, 06:47:14 PM
If there ever is a UI it will be a political decision between the uk and the ROI, which no doubt will involve the Uk and possibly the EU underwriting the economy to a point that it can stand alone, this will have long term benefits and savings for the UK. I have not seen a serious independent report on the economic case for a UI. All these calls for a poll at the moment are premature as a majority of nationalists remain unconvinced. The whining belligerent speech by Martina Anderson in the European Parliament will achieve nothing except confirming that she is a fool.

The problem is that SF can call for a border poll, but they have zero capacity to put forward an economic model for unification that people can believe in. There certainly is a case for the UK giving a good deal, but I would be worried that any discussion will be concerned with not giving Scotland a good deal, or a precedent for one, rather than behaving reasonably and responsibly in relation to NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 14, 2017, 07:46:20 PM
Quote from: heganboy on March 14, 2017, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2017, 08:45:08 PM
Export Statistics for N.Ireland

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion.

External sales (sales to markets outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales).

Exports (sales outside the UK) - £9.1 billion.

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion.

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion. 

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion.

Source?

I hate to point out the obvious but £98.4 Billion is the actual total of those numbers not £ 66.7 billion...

https://www.economy-ni.gov.uk/articles/broad-economy-exports (https://www.economy-ni.gov.uk/articles/broad-economy-exports)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 14, 2017, 07:48:47 PM
How about this presentation of the data to make it clearer?

Total sales by companies in Northern Ireland (NI) were estimated to be worth £66.7 billion in 2015

Sales within NI - £43.7 billion
.
External sales (Outside NI) - £23.0 billion (34.4% of total sales) = 13.8 bn (GB) + £9.1 bn (Outside UK)

Sales to Great Britain (GB) - £13.8 billion (20.7% of sales)



Exports (outside the UK) - £9.1 bn = £3.8 bn (RoW) + £3.4 (RoI) + £1.9 bn (RoEU)

Consisting of:

Exports to the Rest of the World (RoW) - £3.8 billion (5.7% of sales)

Exports to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) - £3.4 billion (5.1% of sales)

Exports to the Rest of the EU (RoEU, excluding RoI) - £1.9 billion (2.8% of sales)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 28, 2017, 06:35:41 PM
Some data.
(http://www.ifs.org.uk/images/obs/revenue_shares2.jpg)

You can see how Scotland had a chance, whereas Wales is a complete basket case.
Not sure about NI, for instance fuel duty seems higher than Wales. With some folks driving on red, and some on white that was red at one time, and most everyone filling up at the border given the fuel was always a few pence cheaper in unoccupied Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on April 01, 2017, 01:24:48 PM
Interesting map of NI demographic changes 1971-2011 coded by green/blue.
It is notable how Belfast has turned green, while the commuter towns around Belfast have expanded, most of these are blue, but Crumlin is notably green.

https://www.thedetail.tv/mapfiles/index.html

It would be interesting to plot the map of GAA clubs on this.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on April 01, 2017, 06:13:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2017, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 14, 2017, 06:47:14 PM
If there ever is a UI it will be a political decision between the uk and the ROI, which no doubt will involve the Uk and possibly the EU underwriting the economy to a point that it can stand alone, this will have long term benefits and savings for the UK. I have not seen a serious independent report on the economic case for a UI. All these calls for a poll at the moment are premature as a majority of nationalists remain unconvinced. The whining belligerent speech by Martina Anderson in the European Parliament will achieve nothing except confirming that she is a fool.

The problem is that SF can call for a border poll, but they have zero capacity to put forward an economic model for unification that people can believe in. There certainly is a case for the UK giving a good deal, but I would be worried that any discussion will be concerned with not giving Scotland a good deal, or a precedent for one, rather than behaving reasonably and responsibly in relation to NI.
Sinn Feins economic model relies on a twin approach,
1. Sure why cant Britain pay.
2. Some one else can pay. This is usually meaning " the rich" (i.e. ordinary working  people with a job) but definitely not those dole scroungers
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on April 01, 2017, 06:26:32 PM
The "someone else" means people who don't vote SF ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on April 01, 2017, 06:37:40 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 01, 2017, 06:26:32 PM
The "someone else" means people who don't vote SF ;)

Which is, of course, not a strong encourage to those people to change their vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on April 01, 2017, 09:52:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 01, 2017, 06:37:40 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 01, 2017, 06:26:32 PM
The "someone else" means people who don't vote SF ;)

Which is, of course, not a strong encourage to those people to change their vote.
100% right.

I can't vote SF because I don't agree with their economic policies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on April 01, 2017, 10:47:34 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 01, 2017, 06:13:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2017, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 14, 2017, 06:47:14 PM
If there ever is a UI it will be a political decision between the uk and the ROI, which no doubt will involve the Uk and possibly the EU underwriting the economy to a point that it can stand alone, this will have long term benefits and savings for the UK. I have not seen a serious independent report on the economic case for a UI. All these calls for a poll at the moment are premature as a majority of nationalists remain unconvinced. The whining belligerent speech by Martina Anderson in the European Parliament will achieve nothing except confirming that she is a fool.

The problem is that SF can call for a border poll, but they have zero capacity to put forward an economic model for unification that people can believe in. There certainly is a case for the UK giving a good deal, but I would be worried that any discussion will be concerned with not giving Scotland a good deal, or a precedent for one, rather than behaving reasonably and responsibly in relation to NI.
Sinn Feins economic model relies on a twin approach,
1. Sure why cant Britain pay.
2. Some one else can pay. This is usually meaning " the rich" (i.e. ordinary working  people with a job) but definitely not those dole scroungers
Ah the aul dole scrounger line.  You do realise that the loss of revenue to fraudulent benefit claims is minuscule compared to tax evasion at the other end of the scale?  You just won't see many tabloid articles or demeaning channel 4 shows about it.  And to go further it is a drop in an infinite ocean compared to tax avoidance by MNCs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 01, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
I see Bertie Aherne today appealed for an end to calls for a Border referendum and indeed explained that the GFA envisaged such a poll only when there was certainty that a United Ireland  was the overwhelming preference  of both unionists and nationalists. So there you go it's not 50% plus one,but requires both a unionist and nationalist majority in favour. In other words it's never going to happen
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 01, 2017, 10:51:47 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 01, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
I see Bertie Aherne today appealed for an end to calls for a Border referendum and indeed explained that the GFA envisaged such a poll only when there was certainty that a United Ireland  was the overwhelming preference  of both unionists and nationalists. So there you go it's not 50% plus one,but requires both a unionist and nationalist majority in favour. In other words it's never going to happen
Depends how much a hard Brexit costs .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 01, 2017, 10:58:34 PM
If it was affordable and any free state party wanted it,unionists would never agree to a UI.Economics doesn't come into it.The clear economic benefits of belonging to the UK never persuaded Northern Nationalists to abandon nationalism
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 01, 2017, 11:17:01 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 01, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
I see Bertie Aherne today appealed for an end to calls for a Border referendum and indeed explained that the GFA envisaged such a poll only when there was certainty that a United Ireland  was the overwhelming preference  of both unionists and nationalists. So there you go it's not 50% plus one,but requires both a unionist and nationalist majority in favour. In other words it's never going to happen

What's written in the GFA?
Anyone in favour of a UI are by definition NOT Unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 01, 2017, 11:41:04 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2017, 11:17:01 PM
What's written in the GFA?

50%+1, even if that 1 is Olly, it still counts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 12:38:44 AM
Read the GFA.It states that both governments (if they even allow a referendum) will be bound to consider the result and act in a way they think is best.Thats a far cry from any commitment to implement a UI.In any event it is plain that both governments won't allow a referendum any time soon,and as Bertie says,not until it's plain that a UI would be a mutually agreed outcome,which is not going to happen


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on May 02, 2017, 02:32:34 AM
From the Good Friday Agreement

The two Governments:
affirm that, if in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise
their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii)
above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on
both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments
legislation to give effect to that wish
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on May 02, 2017, 07:33:57 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 01, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
I see Bertie Aherne today appealed for an end to calls for a Border referendum and indeed explained that the GFA envisaged such a poll only when there was certainty that a United Ireland  was the overwhelming preference  of both unionists and nationalists. So there you go it's not 50% plus one,but requires both a unionist and nationalist majority in favour. In other words it's never going to happen

Bertie Ahern can say what he wants but if there was a majority supporting a United Ireland being blocked by some veto then expect some serious trouble. Cant imagine either government would like to be responsible for that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 07:38:01 AM
All immaterial.Both Governments won't even allow a referendum,and Aherne,a staunch Fianna Failer,merely confirms the fact that a UI is not wanted by Dublin
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 07:44:00 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2017, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 14, 2017, 06:47:14 PM
If there ever is a UI it will be a political decision between the uk and the ROI, which no doubt will involve the Uk and possibly the EU underwriting the economy to a point that it can stand alone, this will have long term benefits and savings for the UK. I have not seen a serious independent report on the economic case for a UI. All these calls for a poll at the moment are premature as a majority of nationalists remain unconvinced. The whining belligerent speech by Martina Anderson in the European Parliament will achieve nothing except confirming that she is a fool.

The problem is that SF can call for a border poll, but they have zero capacity to put forward an economic model for unification that people can believe in. There certainly is a case for the UK giving a good deal, but I would be worried that any discussion will be concerned with not giving Scotland a good deal, or a precedent for one, rather than behaving reasonably and responsibly in relation to NI.

Both ROI and NI run neoliberalism which assumes fiscal is pointless, economies recover quickly from shocks andinflation is a function of money supply. This is all nonsense. It leads to plutocracy and deflation.

Under a different economic system that favoured workers NI''s productivity would rise.
RoI Pension funds earn nothing today.They have huge bond risk.  I think they have 90bn. They could invest in NI.
It would need special tax breaks but it could be done.
The veneration of crap is the obstacle.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 08:29:27 AM
Seafoid,when will you learn? Unionists will not be persuaded by economics.They regard themselves as fully British,deep in their hearts and souls,and this will not be bartered for anything.You are deluded in your thinking that people here will calmly analyse a set of economic data and arrive at a rational decision along the lines of "we'll be better off in a United Ireland"thus abandoning a psyche that is at their core.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 08:37:12 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 08:29:27 AM
Seafoid,when will you learn? Unionists will not be persuaded by economics.They regard themselves as fully British,deep in their hearts and souls,and this will not be bartered for anything.You are deluded in your thinking that people here will calmly analyse a set of economic data and arrive at a rational decision along the lines of "we'll be better off in a United Ireland"thus abandoning a psyche that is at their core.

So Tony we'll baptise a new economics metric in your name. The Fearon curve measures the sensitivity of Unionist belonging to falls in income. You say it is flat.

Economics theory is built around the idea of the rational agent who chooses the best deal every time. 

I know Unionist logic is often nuts but this is about money.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 08:52:30 AM
Why then wasn't there any move during the Celtic Tiger era on behalf of unionists?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 09:07:45 AM
Unionists by their very name want to stay as part of a British UK state.
If they didn't they wouldn't be Unionists.
They are now a minority ( albeit currently the largest one) in the 6 Counties.
When the Nationalist vote becomes bigger than the Unionist vote is when the real world starts to intervene.
The non aligned voters and the soft Nationalist voters will be the real decision makers in the Referendum.
As for Bertie Ahern would that slimy bolx who destroyed an economy ever fck off back to betting on horses.
He seemed to have been very good at it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 09:13:32 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 08:52:30 AM
Why then wasn't there any move during the Celtic Tiger era on behalf of unionists?
Because the UK was solid. It was ruled by more or less rational people.
What changes the dynamic now is Brexit.
WTO rules will not work.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 09:42:56 AM
Do you think Unionists will go quietly into a United Ireland? They couldn't even accept the Union Fleg vote on City Hall.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 09:45:14 AM
What sort of a United Ireland do you envisage?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 09:57:41 AM
Quote from: AQMP on May 02, 2017, 09:51:29 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 09:42:56 AM
Do you think Unionists will go quietly into a United Ireland? They couldn't even accept the Union Fleg vote on City Hall.

This is a good point, unfortunately the fleggers haven't realised that the North now isn't the same wee country that they and their parents grew up in, i.e. a single party police state in which they would dominate themmuns for evermore.

They need some of their so called leaders to introduce the concepts of shared power, shared space and a shared future to them.  But when they look up to Snarlene, Flegory, Wee Sammy, Doddsy and Sir Jeffrey I couldn't say that will happen anytime soon.

...or ever will happen. These same fleg protestors are those who keep these arses in power. If they go against their bigoted voters and actually look to make progress, like Trimble or Paisley did, it's bye bye to their seat and to their big Stormont pay check. Hence why nothing ever gets sorted in this cesspit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:07:00 AM
Both sides need to wise up,including those who think SF will deliver a UI.People will not barter their nationality for economic benefits.If they did Northern Nationalists would have accepted partition years ago.

Why would the people of the 26 counties want to take on a troublesome area with all the associated costs,instability etc? I don't blame them.I think both Dublin and London should be straight with Northerners,admit that neither really wants to rule the area but as they both created the problem they will provide continued financial assistance and encourage both communities here to unite under a common Northern Irishness with enormous savings from shared services etc rather than the wasteful current duplication.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on May 02, 2017, 10:09:13 AM
Ignore Tony's usual trolling. There are a number of things to consider. Firstly there is a younger generation on both sides that don't automatically buy into either the union or a UI so therefore persuasion may not actually be that difficult. Then there is the prospect that in 10 years or so nationalist will actually be the majority in NI. That won't necessarily mean a UI, natioanlists at that time might be quite happy to be the majority and calling the shots. How will unionists react to that? As someone who would love to see a United Ireland I still have a number of issues I'd want to see resolved. The large block of loyalist working classes who could be persuaded to violence, how will they be assured? What exactly is this UI going to look like? How long after a UI will the Brits fund the transition, or will the EU? What effect will Brexit have on the opinions of all including Unionism? Aherne is being realistic, but things change, the NI I was born into is a far cry from the NI of today. Changes happen over decades not weeks, so Tony's trolling about the Freestate is just that Bullshit trolling.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 02, 2017, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 02, 2017, 10:09:13 AM
Ignore Tony's usual trolling. There are a number of things to consider. Firstly there is a younger generation on both sides that don't automatically buy into either the union or a UI so therefore persuasion may not actually be that difficult. Then there is the prospect that in 10 years or so nationalist will actually be the majority in NI. That won't necessarily mean a UI, natioanlists at that time might be quite happy to be the majority and calling the shots. How will unionists react to that? As someone who would love to see a United Ireland I still have a number of issues I'd want to see resolved. The large block of loyalist working classes who could be persuaded to violence, how will they be assured? What exactly is this UI going to look like? How long after a UI will the Brits fund the transition, or will the EU? What effect will Brexit have on the opinions of all including Unionism? Aherne is being realistic, but things change, the NI I was born into is a far cry from the NI of today. Changes happen over decades not weeks, so Tony's trolling about the Freestate is just that Bullshit trolling.

Nothing wrong with that... if you're comfortable with how your life is then most people will keep the status quo.. questions will generally be where will i be finacially? I'd say most nationalist are comfortable with their identity and see themselves as Irish, being part of a UI wont change that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on May 02, 2017, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 10:07:00 AM
Both sides need to wise up,including those who think SF will deliver a UI.People will not barter their nationality for economic benefits.If they did Northern Nationalists would have accepted partition years ago.

Why would the people of the 26 counties want to take on a troublesome area with all the associated costs,instability etc? I don't blame them.I think both Dublin and London should be straight with Northerners,admit that neither really wants to rule the area but as they both created the problem they will provide continued financial assistance and encourage both communities here to unite under a common Northern Irishness with enormous savings from shared services etc rather than the wasteful current duplication.

Whilst SF are the main cheerleaders of a UI, they won't and can't be the sole arbiter on how this can be achieved. The likes of the SDLP, FF and FG have made small soundings in that regard they in particular FF and FG will have as much if not more say on how or what this UI will look like.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on May 02, 2017, 11:30:27 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 09:42:56 AM
Do you think Unionists will go quietly into a United Ireland? They couldn't even accept the Union Fleg vote on City Hall.

If the fleg protest are anything to go by then it will all fizzle out pretty quickly

Initial rage
(https://img.rasset.ie/000d6d57-800.jpg)

few months later no-one can be bothered
(http://cdn-02.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article34550394.ece/ae738/AUTOCROP/w620h342/loyalist-flag-protest-003.jpg)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 12:10:15 PM
If Brexit goes through it may well be on WTO terms which will hammer UK GDP. The NI block grant will probably be cut.
Exporters in NI will not have cost free access to the Single Market. So their earnings will fall. The NHS will be in serious trouble. 
It's not going to be my little unionist pony .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 01:50:42 PM
If if if.The fact is the British and EU need each other hence after all the puffing and blowing what will emerge is a Brexit so soft that it will hardly be noticeable.

This reminds me of the DUP never sitting in government with SF or SF never sitting in Stormont.All huffing and puffing until reality kicks in
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 03:48:47 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on May 02, 2017, 11:30:27 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 09:42:56 AM
Do you think Unionists will go quietly into a United Ireland? They couldn't even accept the Union Fleg vote on City Hall.

If the fleg protest are anything to go by then it will all fizzle out pretty quickly

Initial rage
(https://img.rasset.ie/000d6d57-800.jpg)

few months later no-one can be bothered
(http://cdn-02.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article34550394.ece/ae738/AUTOCROP/w620h342/loyalist-flag-protest-003.jpg)

Quare difference in their fleg and their "country".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 03:51:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 01:50:42 PM
If if if.The fact is the British and EU need each other hence after all the puffing and blowing what will emerge is a Brexit so soft that it will hardly be noticeable.

This reminds me of the DUP never sitting in government with SF or SF never sitting in Stormont.All huffing and puffing until reality kicks in

I'm not so sure about a soft Brexit. The EU need to discourage other country from exiting, but need to placate Britain too. It's a fine line.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 04:01:02 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 03:51:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 01:50:42 PM
If if if.The fact is the British and EU need each other hence after all the puffing and blowing what will emerge is a Brexit so soft that it will hardly be noticeable.

This reminds me of the DUP never sitting in government with SF or SF never sitting in Stormont.All huffing and puffing until reality kicks in

I'm not so sure about a soft Brexit. The EU need to discourage other country from exiting, but need to placate Britain too. It's a fine line.
Plus the Brexit ministers are hopeless
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Brexit is a fantasy. It will be a mess. The Irish government cares more about Unionists than anyone in Downing St.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
I would love to see the Tories f**k up and be excluded from  power for a generation
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent

Aye but do the EU want France, Spain, Italy etc exiting too? If Britain get a cracking deal, others will be queuing up to leave (I think they are anyway).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 02, 2017, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
I would love to see the Tories f**k up and be excluded from  power for a generation

They were out for a generation and uk government still fucked up... politicians will always f**k you over doesn't matter a feck what colour of tie you were
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 02, 2017, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
I would love to see the Tories f**k up and be excluded from  power for a generation

They were out for a generation and uk government still fucked up... politicians will always f**k you over doesn't matter a feck what colour of tie you were

+1

I wish people would stop going on about this Tory and Labour shite. They both sing from the same hymn sheet. They're not there to do me or you any good.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on May 03, 2017, 07:12:57 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 02, 2017, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
I would love to see the Tories f**k up and be excluded from  power for a generation

They were out for a generation and uk government still fucked up... politicians will always f**k you over doesn't matter a feck what colour of tie you were

+1

I wish people would stop going on about this Tory and Labour shite. They both sing from the same hymn sheet. They're not there to do me or you any good.

No point talking to gobshites who are obsessed with the Left as if left wing politics will change everything for the better. They are usually failed university students who think they know better what to do with your wages I.e. Give it to welfare scroungers
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 03, 2017, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on May 03, 2017, 07:12:57 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 02, 2017, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
I would love to see the Tories f**k up and be excluded from  power for a generation

They were out for a generation and uk government still fucked up... politicians will always f**k you over doesn't matter a feck what colour of tie you were

+1

I wish people would stop going on about this Tory and Labour shite. They both sing from the same hymn sheet. They're not there to do me or you any good.

No point talking to gobshites who are obsessed with the Left as if left wing politics will change everything for the better. They are usually failed university students who think they know better what to do with your wages I.e. Give it to welfare scroungers

Yeah because these welfare "scroungers" are the real problem. I see their propaganda has won you over anyway.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 09:24:00 AM
Time to go back to the 1840s and put them all on outdoor relief building roads.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 10:33:16 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 03, 2017, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on May 03, 2017, 07:12:57 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 02, 2017, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
I would love to see the Tories f**k up and be excluded from  power for a generation

They were out for a generation and uk government still fucked up... politicians will always f**k you over doesn't matter a feck what colour of tie you were

+1

I wish people would stop going on about this Tory and Labour shite. They both sing from the same hymn sheet. They're not there to do me or you any good.

No point talking to gobshites who are obsessed with the Left as if left wing politics will change everything for the better. They are usually failed university students who think they know better what to do with your wages I.e. Give it to welfare scroungers

Yeah because these welfare "scroungers" are the real problem. I see their propaganda has won you over anyway.

Nope they arent really the problem just one of many reasons that working class voters feel pissed off..You cant blame the tax avoiders, the 1% rich who have screwed the system because the government have allowed it, the ones we have voted in...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 11:11:28 AM
Except it doesn't matter who the 6 Cos voters elect.
They'll never be in the British Government anyway.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on May 03, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
Who materially benefits from Northern Ireland being part of the UK?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on May 03, 2017, 02:05:22 PM
Quote from: heganboy on May 03, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
Who materially benefits from Northern Ireland being part of the UK?

The south of Ireland for not having to foot the bill for a banana republic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 02:06:27 PM
Lucky oul Cork and Kerry.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 03, 2017, 02:12:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 10:33:16 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 03, 2017, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on May 03, 2017, 07:12:57 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 02, 2017, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
I would love to see the Tories f**k up and be excluded from  power for a generation

They were out for a generation and uk government still fucked up... politicians will always f**k you over doesn't matter a feck what colour of tie you were

+1

I wish people would stop going on about this Tory and Labour shite. They both sing from the same hymn sheet. They're not there to do me or you any good.

No point talking to gobshites who are obsessed with the Left as if left wing politics will change everything for the better. They are usually failed university students who think they know better what to do with your wages I.e. Give it to welfare scroungers

Yeah because these welfare "scroungers" are the real problem. I see their propaganda has won you over anyway.

Nope they arent really the problem just one of many reasons that working class voters feel pissed off..You cant blame the tax avoiders, the 1% rich who have screwed the system because the government have allowed it, the ones we have voted in...

THe system is set up to benefit the big chiefs and their cronies, not for us peasants.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 03, 2017, 02:22:49 PM
Quote from: heganboy on May 03, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
Who materially benefits from Northern Ireland being part of the UK?

Union fleg manufacturers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on May 03, 2017, 02:40:34 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on May 03, 2017, 07:12:57 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2017, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 02, 2017, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 02, 2017, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 02, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This is all handbags The Brexit will be soft simply because both UK and EU are mutually dependent
Who needs the other the most?
I know one part of us would love to see the Brits totally fck up but we also know it's better for us if they remain reasonably successful and maintain a common trading area.
I would love to see the Tories f**k up and be excluded from  power for a generation

They were out for a generation and uk government still fucked up... politicians will always f**k you over doesn't matter a feck what colour of tie you were

+1

I wish people would stop going on about this Tory and Labour shite. They both sing from the same hymn sheet. They're not there to do me or you any good.

No point talking to gobshites who are obsessed with the Left as if left wing politics will change everything for the better. They are usually failed university students who think they know better what to do with your wages I.e. Give it to welfare scroungers

Yes it's much better to have a society where the elite flourish and big corporations thrive whilst the majority of people struggle to make ends meet on a basic living wage. I guess you don't have to worry about suffering from such difficulties though, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating an 'I'm alright jack' attitude where a crumbling health service and a costly education system have adversely affected the average working persons lives. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 03:18:33 PM

Quote from: heganboy on May 03, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
Who materially benefits from Northern Ireland being part of the UK?

The Republic of Ireland.  They don't have to pay for an economic basket case.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 03, 2017, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?

-collapse of "Protestant" industries such as shipbuilding
- 1969-1995 and the destruction of a lot of infrastructure plus the emergence of a generation with poor business/management skills
- the world moved on
- Protestant brain drain
- UK economy trina cheile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5e346QvRQ&list=PLoBSoR2vm9GlxMHFwOhmZveCqBHHZ7STP
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 05:48:37 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?

N.I. requires a subvention of around £10bn per annum to keep all services running.  The majority of heavy industry is gone. Most jobs introduced in the last 10 years are in the service sector.  Agriculture is dependent on subsidy from EU for majority of farmers who have small family holdings which produce a barely sufficient income.  Infrastructure, especially when compared to RoI or UK is poor, arterial roads are not dulled or motorways, railways are insufficient, public transport is barely adequate.  There are no natural resources exploited to the point where they produce a significant income, e.g. oil, gas. renewable energies.  Inward investment has not brought in wealth creating or manufacturing industry and has been wasted on a service sector giving millions to law firms, call centres, etc.  The tax base is insufficient to sustain the region.  Housing stock is adequate with no plan to improve it or the associated infrastructure.  The main export is our young people who are educated to third level and then go abroad where their skills can be appreciated.

I could go on.  Thank God for the UK government's willingness to continue to pump billions into a small rural region which will never provide a return on its investment.  so, many of us are living off the Queen's shilling and working in the public sector which still makes up well over 60% of the economic activity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 03, 2017, 06:04:37 PM
In other words, the Brits had to get us. It's not costing them near enough.

Not only that, but even in the good times, the infrastructure was poor, nhs fecked, waiting lists etc. This place was never designed to be prosperous, nor never will be
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: StGallsGAA on May 03, 2017, 07:47:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 03, 2017, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?

-collapse of "Protestant" industries such as shipbuilding
- 1969-1995 and the destruction of a lot of infrastructure plus the emergence of a generation with poor business/management skills
- the world moved on
-Protestant brain drain
- UK economy trina cheile


Didn't realised Gregory Campbell had left??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 03, 2017, 08:16:33 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on May 03, 2017, 07:47:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 03, 2017, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?

-collapse of "Protestant" industries such as shipbuilding
- 1969-1995 and the destruction of a lot of infrastructure plus the emergence of a generation with poor business/management skills
- the world moved on
-Protestant brain drain
- UK economy trina cheile


Didn't realised Gregory Campbell had left??

I think you misunderstand the meaning of brain drain, it means brainy people leaving, not Gregory Campbell.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 05:48:37 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?

N.I. requires a subvention of around £10bn per annum to keep all services running.  The majority of heavy industry is gone. Most jobs introduced in the last 10 years are in the service sector.  Agriculture is dependent on subsidy from EU for majority of farmers who have small family holdings which produce a barely sufficient income.  Infrastructure, especially when compared to RoI or UK is poor, arterial roads are not dulled or motorways, railways are insufficient, public transport is barely adequate.  There are no natural resources exploited to the point where they produce a significant income, e.g. oil, gas. renewable energies.  Inward investment has not brought in wealth creating or manufacturing industry and has been wasted on a service sector giving millions to law firms, call centres, etc.  The tax base is insufficient to sustain the region.  Housing stock is adequate with no plan to improve it or the associated infrastructure.  The main export is our young people who are educated to third level and then go abroad where their skills can be appreciated.

I could go on.  Thank God for the UK government's willingness to continue to pump billions into a small rural region which will never provide a return on its investment.  so, many of us are living off the Queen's shilling and working in the public sector which still makes up well over 60% of the economic activity.

You're really selling it to our southern brethren
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 08:25:46 PM
I suspect Owen will be a no voter when the "Border poll" comes around.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on May 03, 2017, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 08:25:46 PM
I suspect Owen will be a no voter when the "Border poll" comes around.

When we absorb most of the financial and high tech jobs that are running from Britain like it's a burning house we might be able to afford to support all the special interests in the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:02:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 03, 2017, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 08:25:46 PM
I suspect Owen will be a no voter when the "Border poll" comes around.

When we absorb most of the financial and high tech jobs that are running from Britain like it's a burning house we might be able to afford to support all the special interests in the north.

If I was in the South Id want a Health Care System before I started to pay for the North's one 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:26:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.

I was taking the piss. I was going to follow it up with cheaper housing also
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:38:57 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:26:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.

I was taking the piss. I was going to follow it up with cheaper housing also

I know! I was going along with it for affect FFS  ::)

;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: shark on May 03, 2017, 09:44:57 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.

A bit of a blunt assessment. Certainly it is managed abysmally and is not attaining value for money for the taxpayer. However the care isn't crap for everyone, as you say. Areas of cancer care are world class. Paediatric care, despite the children's hospital fiasco, is of a very high standard.
I know I'm clutching at straws, but there are some aspects that are functioning amid the general mess.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 03, 2017, 09:56:12 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 05:48:37 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?

N.I. requires a subvention of around £10bn per annum to keep all services running.  The majority of heavy industry is gone. Most jobs introduced in the last 10 years are in the service sector.  Agriculture is dependent on subsidy from EU for majority of farmers who have small family holdings which produce a barely sufficient income.  Infrastructure, especially when compared to RoI or UK is poor, arterial roads are not dulled or motorways, railways are insufficient, public transport is barely adequate.  There are no natural resources exploited to the point where they produce a significant income, e.g. oil, gas. renewable energies.  Inward investment has not brought in wealth creating or manufacturing industry and has been wasted on a service sector giving millions to law firms, call centres, etc.  The tax base is insufficient to sustain the region.  Housing stock is adequate with no plan to improve it or the associated infrastructure.  The main export is our young people who are educated to third level and then go abroad where their skills can be appreciated.

I could go on.  Thank God for the UK government's willingness to continue to pump billions into a small rural region which will never provide a return on its investment.  so, many of us are living off the Queen's shilling and working in the public sector which still makes up well over 60% of the economic activity.

While this is helpful, any real analysis needs some comparison in detail between NI and ROI to see what is different, given that the ROI does pay for itself (and has some left over to send to Poland and build the A5 in Tyrone). I cannot see what the major difference between North and South is, perhaps because south Armagh isn't very different. There is a real lack of detailed research on this. For instance, where do all these extra public sector staff work. Class sizes are a bit bigger in the south, but generally education would not be hugely different and there may be more working in the third level in the south. Certain aspects of the social services are profoundly understaffed in the south, but the total number of staff cannot be that great. There could be differences in the degree of privatisation.

Quote from: shark on May 03, 2017, 09:44:57 PM
A bit of a blunt assessment. Certainly it is managed abysmally and is not attaining value for money for the taxpayer. However the care isn't crap for everyone, as you say. Areas of cancer care are world class. Paediatric care, despite the children's hospital fiasco, is of a very high standard.
I know I'm clutching at straws, but there are some aspects that are functioning amid the general mess.

Comparative stats do not show things much better in NI. The health service in the south is OK for most, but does have some unacceptable failures.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 10:11:49 PM
Comparative stats? Free health care (long waiting lists) paying health care no waiting lists ??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.
When did you use the 26 Co health care system either public or private (via health insurance)?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:07:49 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.
When did you use the 26 Co health care system either public or private (via health insurance)?

What would that tell you sure?

I watch the news and drive past your dreary infirmerary thankful that her Majesty and Uncle Sam have always afforded me acceptable medical treatment at 1st world standards

I suppose you'll be trying to say next your education system is up to scratch when an afternoon on here is all evidence you need to display the inferior level of education in the Free State.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omochain on May 04, 2017, 06:57:43 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:07:49 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.
When did you use the 26 Co health care system either public or private (via health insurance)?

What would that tell you sure?

I watch the news and drive past your dreary infirmerary thankful that her Majesty and Uncle Sam have always afforded me acceptable medical treatment at 1st world standards

I suppose you'll be trying to say next your education system is up to scratch when an afternoon on here is all evidence you need to display the inferior level of education in the Free State.

Joe ... you speak with such certainty... Tell us about your experiences with the Healthcare and educational systems in the Free State.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on May 04, 2017, 10:11:28 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 05:48:37 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?

N.I. requires a subvention of around £10bn per annum to keep all services running.  The majority of heavy industry is gone. Most jobs introduced in the last 10 years are in the service sector.  Agriculture is dependent on subsidy from EU for majority of farmers who have small family holdings which produce a barely sufficient income.  Infrastructure, especially when compared to RoI or UK is poor, arterial roads are not dulled or motorways, railways are insufficient, public transport is barely adequate.  There are no natural resources exploited to the point where they produce a significant income, e.g. oil, gas. renewable energies.  Inward investment has not brought in wealth creating or manufacturing industry and has been wasted on a service sector giving millions to law firms, call centres, etc.  The tax base is insufficient to sustain the region.  Housing stock is adequate with no plan to improve it or the associated infrastructure.  The main export is our young people who are educated to third level and then go abroad where their skills can be appreciated.

I could go on.  Thank God for the UK government's willingness to continue to pump billions into a small rural region which will never provide a return on its investment.  so, many of us are living off the Queen's shilling and working in the public sector which still makes up well over 60% of the economic activity.

Doesn't sound like partition has done it any favours, does it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on May 04, 2017, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 05:48:37 PM

I could go on.  Thank God for the UK government's willingness to continue to pump billions into a small rural region which will never provide a return on its investment.

This bit in particular pisses me off. Such shite. I'm sure before independence there were many in the south who had a similar attitude (there certainly wasn't much affection for the rebels in 1916) - no confidence in themselves or their fellow countrymen that they could make a success of governing themselves, rather stand cap in hand for the 'benevolent invaders' who were doing them a favour by governing them. Thank god that changed. You should be embarrassed.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on May 04, 2017, 10:41:50 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 04, 2017, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 05:48:37 PM

I could go on.  Thank God for the UK government's willingness to continue to pump billions into a small rural region which will never provide a return on its investment.

This bit in particular pisses me off. Such shite. I'm sure before independence there were many in the south who had a similar attitude (there certainly wasn't much affection for the rebels in 1916) - no confidence in themselves or their fellow countrymen that they could make a success of governing themselves, rather stand cap in hand for the 'benevolent invaders' who were doing them a favour by governing them. Thank god that changed. You should be embarrassed.

+1
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 04, 2017, 10:45:27 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/04/eu-irish-unity-brexit-europe-northern-ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 04, 2017, 11:10:54 AM
Quote from: omochain on May 04, 2017, 06:57:43 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:07:49 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.
When did you use the 26 Co health care system either public or private (via health insurance)?

What would that tell you sure?

I watch the news and drive past your dreary infirmerary thankful that her Majesty and Uncle Sam have always afforded me acceptable medical treatment at 1st world standards

I suppose you'll be trying to say next your education system is up to scratch when an afternoon on here is all evidence you need to display the inferior level of education in the Free State.

Joe ... you speak with such certainty... Tell us about your experiences with the Healthcare and educational systems in the Free State.
He's just another WUM spouting ill informed balderdash.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on May 04, 2017, 11:36:14 AM
Quote from: omochain on May 04, 2017, 06:57:43 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 04, 2017, 12:07:49 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2017, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 03, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 03, 2017, 09:14:23 PM
Brilliant health care system in the south .... no?

Eh? Probably worse than Americas TBF, at least here if you've got insurance and dont mind forking out $$ you'll get well looked after.
In the South its just crap for everyone.
When did you use the 26 Co health care system either public or private (via health insurance)?

What would that tell you sure?

I watch the news and drive past your dreary infirmerary thankful that her Majesty and Uncle Sam have always afforded me acceptable medical treatment at 1st world standards

I suppose you'll be trying to say next your education system is up to scratch when an afternoon on here is all evidence you need to display the inferior level of education in the Free State.

Joe ... you speak with such certainty... Tell us about your experiences with the Healthcare and educational systems in the Free State.

He may have some experience of the mental health side of the Health system in the Republic but education wise very little ( maybe in the remedial reading field)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: StGallsGAA on May 05, 2017, 01:14:42 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 03, 2017, 08:16:33 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on May 03, 2017, 07:47:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 03, 2017, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 03, 2017, 03:42:49 PM
why is it an economic basket case?

-collapse of "Protestant" industries such as shipbuilding
- 1969-1995 and the destruction of a lot of infrastructure plus the emergence of a generation with poor business/management skills
- the world moved on
-Protestant brain drain
- UK economy trina cheile


Didn't realised Gregory Campbell had left??

I think you misunderstand the meaning of brain drain, it means brainy people leaving, not Gregory Campbell.

That'll be a woosh then? 🤔😏😉
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on May 05, 2017, 09:40:39 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 04, 2017, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 05:48:37 PM

I could go on.  Thank God for the UK government's willingness to continue to pump billions into a small rural region which will never provide a return on its investment.

This bit in particular pisses me off. Such shite. I'm sure before independence there were many in the south who had a similar attitude (there certainly wasn't much affection for the rebels in 1916) - no confidence in themselves or their fellow countrymen that they could make a success of governing themselves, rather stand cap in hand for the 'benevolent invaders' who were doing them a favour by governing them. Thank god that changed. You should be embarrassed.

Not embarrassed in the slightest.  I live in the real world.  There is nothing in the RoI that can compare with the government provided services in NI that we now find to be not at the levels we would want.  All healthcare is free, you can pay if you want but no one pays €40 each time to visit their GP or for hospital care provided for all illness.  Social care is available to all who need it, yes it could be better but it is miles ahead of RoI provision.  The NHS owns and runs all of our hospitals for the people regardless of ability to pay and religious orders are not able to dictate the services that are provided. Nursery, primary and secondary education in NI is free to all, fee paying schools are virtually negligible and deal with mostly foreign children being boarded by their parent. Class sizes are smaller than in RoI and schools are better resourced with a much better schools' estate.  The wealthy have to send their children to the same schools as the less well off unlike the RoI where segregation by ability to pay school fees separates society.  No child is turned away from a primary school because his/her parents didn't bring the child for baptism in the Catholic Church.  The elderly are looked after with a good state pension, social care available regardless of ability to pay but with those with assets being asked to pay towards their care and the health care provided to them is free and readily available.  While housing could be improved, we have sufficient stock for the people and the HE and housing associations continue to build housing for rent which is both of a high standard and affordable. For those unable to afford the rents the social care system will provide assistance, not always enough but it is there. In the public sector, our workers have been forced to take pay freezes and lower than inflation pay increases but none of them have been forced into taking significant pay cuts to pay for the billions of euros that were taken from the banks by fellow citizens and now have to be paid back by ordinary citizens as enforced by the Euro bankers who effectively run the RoI economy as it pays back its debts for the bailout.

None of this level of provision in NI could be afforded by the RoI as it cannot be provided to people living within its jurisdiction.  Yes we live in the soft North but you have to recognise it is provided by the UK government on the basis that much more is paid into NI than can be harvested in terms of tax income.  Does this make me feel less Irish than any other person on the island? No.  As I said at the outset, I live in the real world, I didn't nor did anyone of my generation or those ahead of me create this situation of dependence on the UK government and until there is a better offer from the RoI, I do not see any need to move to a UI.  Will Brexit change this?  Who knows at this stage.  Do the people in the RoI jurisdiction want to take on the full cost of running NI?  I would believe they won't when they realise the true cost.  Is it worth generations living in austerity in a UI so that you believe that you are governing yourself?  The reality is that we in the six counties will not be governing ourselves in a UI, we have a small proportion of the population and around half of them will have no allegiance to any of the governing parties.  It is so easy to have views that an UI will answer all our problems when it is not on the horizon within the lifetime of people of voting age in NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on May 05, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
A lot of that is rubbish, and in any event, irrelevant. The argument isn't who can provide for us, its how to best get us to provide for ourselves.

The republic has managed it, whatever you think about their policies in certain areas, while separating NI from the republic has clearly held it back. A UI would be democratic, you could vote on issues that are important to you, and if enough other people agree, they are likely to become policy.

You say you see yourself as Irish, but go on to say the reality is 'we' wouldn't be governing 'ourselves' in a united Ireland. Who would be governing, if not Irish people? Re half the NI population having no allegiance to any of the governing parties, are you really so devoid of foresight as to not be able to see that there surely would be a party they would have allegiance to? And that we may find that with unionism/nationalism taking a back seat, their policies may appeal to some nationwide?

A UI would be a step into the unknown, and there may be many changes we don't like. But to say that NI is better off as part of the union ignores all the evidence of the last century.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 05, 2017, 10:50:49 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 05, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
A lot of that is rubbish, and in any event, irrelevant. The argument isn't who can provide for us, its how to best get us to provide for ourselves.

The republic has managed it, whatever you think about their policies in certain areas, while separating NI from the republic has clearly held it back. A UI would be democratic, you could vote on issues that are important to you, and if enough other people agree, they are likely to become policy.

You say you see yourself as Irish, but go on to say the reality is 'we' wouldn't be governing 'ourselves' in a united Ireland. Who would be governing, if not Irish people? Re half the NI population having no allegiance to any of the governing parties, are you really so devoid of foresight as to not be able to see that there surely would be a party they would have allegiance to? And that we may find that with unionism/nationalism taking a back seat, their policies may appeal to some nationwide?

A UI would be a step into the unknown, and there may be many changes we don't like. But to say that NI is better off as part of the union ignores all the evidence of the last century.

Its a bit like brexit, we wouldnt really know what it would be like until it happens as its never happened before, but it doesnt stop people telling everyone it will be stite or brilliant 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 05, 2017, 10:50:49 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 05, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
A lot of that is rubbish, and in any event, irrelevant. The argument isn't who can provide for us, its how to best get us to provide for ourselves.

The republic has managed it, whatever you think about their policies in certain areas, while separating NI from the republic has clearly held it back. A UI would be democratic, you could vote on issues that are important to you, and if enough other people agree, they are likely to become policy.

You say you see yourself as Irish, but go on to say the reality is 'we' wouldn't be governing 'ourselves' in a united Ireland. Who would be governing, if not Irish people? Re half the NI population having no allegiance to any of the governing parties, are you really so devoid of foresight as to not be able to see that there surely would be a party they would have allegiance to? And that we may find that with unionism/nationalism taking a back seat, their policies may appeal to some nationwide?

A UI would be a step into the unknown, and there may be many changes we don't like. But to say that NI is better off as part of the union ignores all the evidence of the last century.

Its a bit like brexit, we wouldnt really know what it would be like until it happens as its never happened before, but it doesnt stop people telling everyone it will be stite or brilliant
Do Northern politicians say "the reality of the situation" much ?
They would be obliged to say it in a UI.

There are serious questions about parity of esteem for radio jingles in a UI . Some of the 26 county earworms are atrocious.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 05, 2017, 11:04:14 AM
Going by Owen's long post above I'm led to believe we have to pay school and Uni fees, don't get any State pensions, have no Health system, can't go to school unless we're Catholic or C of I.
Also that Catholic schools in the 6 Cos take any pupil.

I'm off to Fermanagh in the morning...... but will have to buy a tractor to travel on the roads there.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 05, 2017, 11:11:52 AM
This thread tends to go around in circles. From time to time you get a detailed discussion of what about this or what about that. In my opinion, this is largely pointless. There was a time when the ROI could not afford services and that time has had some effect on the structure of services today, in many cases those limitations are recognised and being addressed. Now it can afford comparable services and in general, in a democratic society, it will adopt a service provision that Irish people want. The needs of people in Fermanagh are not much different from those in Monaghan.

The issue is a simple one, the services in NI are not paid for by people of NI. More seriously, nobody seems to have any belief that this will ever change or even that it should ever change. Nationalists have moved from being third class citizens to being second class citizens and seem happy to look at the glass half full rather than the remaining short measure. The statement about " that you believe that you are governing yourself" in the previous post was one of the most craven that I have seen.

But this is not going to get better, NI may well lose more of its economy and much of its overinflated public services, while the ROI becomes significantly more prosperous than the UK and more noticeably so. It is not a case of wait a while and the problem will go away, it won't. Perhaps there isn't a solution, but some effort to find one is needed and unfortunately, NI "nationalist" parties haven't even tried, perhaps reflecting the apathy of their voters.

In my opinion, there exists an opportunity in the current situation to link NI more closely with the ROI economy, without fiddling with flegs and the like for the present. If this makes NI more like the ROI economically then the need for a subsidy greatly reduces and the debate can be held on other grounds.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 05, 2017, 11:15:16 AM
I think the big question is what it would take for NI to achieve its economic potential. Cos it is nowhere near that today.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on May 05, 2017, 11:27:34 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 05, 2017, 09:40:39 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 04, 2017, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on May 03, 2017, 05:48:37 PM

I could go on.  Thank God for the UK government's willingness to continue to pump billions into a small rural region which will never provide a return on its investment.

This bit in particular pisses me off. Such shite. I'm sure before independence there were many in the south who had a similar attitude (there certainly wasn't much affection for the rebels in 1916) - no confidence in themselves or their fellow countrymen that they could make a success of governing themselves, rather stand cap in hand for the 'benevolent invaders' who were doing them a favour by governing them. Thank god that changed. You should be embarrassed.

Not embarrassed in the slightest.  I live in the real world.  There is nothing in the RoI that can compare with the government provided services in NI that we now find to be not at the levels we would want.  All healthcare is free, you can pay if you want but no one pays €40 each time to visit their GP or for hospital care provided for all illness.  Social care is available to all who need it, yes it could be better but it is miles ahead of RoI provision.  The NHS owns and runs all of our hospitals for the people regardless of ability to pay and religious orders are not able to dictate the services that are provided. Nursery, primary and secondary education in NI is free to all, fee paying schools are virtually negligible and deal with mostly foreign children being boarded by their parent. Class sizes are smaller than in RoI and schools are better resourced with a much better schools' estate.  The wealthy have to send their children to the same schools as the less well off unlike the RoI where segregation by ability to pay school fees separates society.  No child is turned away from a primary school because his/her parents didn't bring the child for baptism in the Catholic Church.  The elderly are looked after with a good state pension, social care available regardless of ability to pay but with those with assets being asked to pay towards their care and the health care provided to them is free and readily available.  While housing could be improved, we have sufficient stock for the people and the HE and housing associations continue to build housing for rent which is both of a high standard and affordable. For those unable to afford the rents the social care system will provide assistance, not always enough but it is there. In the public sector, our workers have been forced to take pay freezes and lower than inflation pay increases but none of them have been forced into taking significant pay cuts to pay for the billions of euros that were taken from the banks by fellow citizens and now have to be paid back by ordinary citizens as enforced by the Euro bankers who effectively run the RoI economy as it pays back its debts for the bailout.

None of this level of provision in NI could be afforded by the RoI as it cannot be provided to people living within its jurisdiction.  Yes we live in the soft North but you have to recognise it is provided by the UK government on the basis that much more is paid into NI than can be harvested in terms of tax income.  Does this make me feel less Irish than any other person on the island? No.  As I said at the outset, I live in the real world, I didn't nor did anyone of my generation or those ahead of me create this situation of dependence on the UK government and until there is a better offer from the RoI, I do not see any need to move to a UI.  Will Brexit change this?  Who knows at this stage.  Do the people in the RoI jurisdiction want to take on the full cost of running NI?  I would believe they won't when they realise the true cost.  Is it worth generations living in austerity in a UI so that you believe that you are governing yourself?  The reality is that we in the six counties will not be governing ourselves in a UI, we have a small proportion of the population and around half of them will have no allegiance to any of the governing parties.  It is so easy to have views that an UI will answer all our problems when it is not on the horizon within the lifetime of people of voting age in NI.

Just have to point out some inaccuracies here. The state pension in NI is £122 as opposed to €230 in ROI. Other forms of welfare are considerably higher as well if you want to go down that route.

In terms of public sector pay, rates are still considerably higher in ROI than in NI, the Luas drivers went on strike over only getting €55k a year ffs. Wages in the private sector are also much higher in ROI than in NI, I'd hazard a guess probably somewhere in the region of 20-25%. Hence the reason a considerably greater number of people travel from NI to work in ROI rather than vice versa. You go on about public services being less costly, which is true in the case of healthcare but much less so in terms of education. The education system in the south is pretty decent, you only have to look at the strength of a young educated workforce coming out of college. You point out all of the negatives but fail to look at the bigger picture.

Yes, there would be an initial cost in unification which may take a generation to rectify but I believe in the longer term it would be much better for the country as a whole and particularly the north. The north is becoming more of a basket case year on year and Brexit will only serve to increase the divide in prosperity between north and south.     
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on May 05, 2017, 01:09:26 PM
Unification of the territory is of no use without unification of the people. There is so much economic potentials in the areas of IT, pharmaceutical, agriculture, tourism, green energy etc.
These can only be achieved through EU membership, attractive tax rate for foreign investment, possible acceptance of a military alliance and a national movement which ensures minorities have nothing to fear from majority rule
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2017, 02:59:41 PM
A poll reveals 51 per cent back a vote over the North's place in the UK in the next 5 years.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/1017253/northern-ireland-politics-border-poll/

Now I don't think this will pass first time out, but it is absolutely essential that they are not allowed hold one, Brexit style, where there is no clarity on what the issues are. You'd need a neutral body e.g. OECD to measure the actual state of the NI economy and taxes etc, you'd need the Irish government to say how they say it and the British to say both what would happen if yes but also if no, in terms of long term plans. if it is thought necessary to hold one then it should be necessary to clarify these things.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 19, 2017, 07:05:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2017, 02:59:41 PM
A poll reveals 51 per cent back a vote over the North's place in the UK in the next 5 years.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/1017253/northern-ireland-politics-border-poll/

Now I don't think this will pass first time out, but it is absolutely essential that they are not allowed hold one, Brexit style, where there is no clarity on what the issues are. You'd need a neutral body e.g. OECD to measure the actual state of the NI economy and taxes etc, you'd need the Irish government to say how they say it and the British to say both what would happen if yes but also if no, in terms of long term plans. if it is thought necessary to hold one then it should be necessary to clarify these things.
Good post.
There would also have to be an investigation or series of investigations  into the unionist education problem, why productivity is so poor, what ending the border might mean for economic activity, what the British have neglected etc
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
The evolution of the 6 county population

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74f03386ad0ef7cb5382cea013865e6d25aa9d7902c5a60bcce4efb35db341ea.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 01, 2017, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: AQMP on June 01, 2017, 03:49:46 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 19, 2017, 07:05:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2017, 02:59:41 PM
A poll reveals 51 per cent back a vote over the North's place in the UK in the next 5 years.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/1017253/northern-ireland-politics-border-poll/

Now I don't think this will pass first time out, but it is absolutely essential that they are not allowed hold one, Brexit style, where there is no clarity on what the issues are. You'd need a neutral body e.g. OECD to measure the actual state of the NI economy and taxes etc, you'd need the Irish government to say how they say it and the British to say both what would happen if yes but also if no, in terms of long term plans. if it is thought necessary to hold one then it should be necessary to clarify these things.
Good post.
There would also have to be an investigation or series of investigations  into the unionist education problem, why productivity is so poor, what ending the border might mean for economic activity, what the British have neglected etc

Agreed, quite clearly being part of the UK has stunted the economic development of the North.

As long as Unionists can fly their fleg and Britain hang on to their piece of Ireland, that's all either party will ever care about. Everything else is an irrelevance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Lar Naparka on June 01, 2017, 04:15:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 01, 2017, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: AQMP on June 01, 2017, 03:49:46 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 19, 2017, 07:05:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2017, 02:59:41 PM
A poll reveals 51 per cent back a vote over the North's place in the UK in the next 5 years.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/1017253/northern-ireland-politics-border-poll/

Now I don't think this will pass first time out, but it is absolutely essential that they are not allowed hold one, Brexit style, where there is no clarity on what the issues are. You'd need a neutral body e.g. OECD to measure the actual state of the NI economy and taxes etc, you'd need the Irish government to say how they say it and the British to say both what would happen if yes but also if no, in terms of long term plans. if it is thought necessary to hold one then it should be necessary to clarify these things.
Good post.
There would also have to be an investigation or series of investigations  into the unionist education problem, why productivity is so poor, what ending the border might mean for economic activity, what the British have neglected etc

Agreed, quite clearly being part of the UK has stunted the economic development of the North.

As long as Unionists can fly their fleg and Britain hang on to their piece of Ireland, that's all either party will ever care about. Everything else is an irrelevance.
I think he Brits can't wait to get out. One of Bertie's ministers once told me that with the naval base on Lough Foyle no longer needed to control the North Atlantic, they have no strategic reason to hang about.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 01, 2017, 04:38:07 PM
Once they'd be happy Ireland wouldn't be a threat to their Western flank they'd be delighted to be out of here.
Of course if a majority of Scots would ever do the decent thing we could speed up the whole process.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
The evolution of the 6 county population

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74f03386ad0ef7cb5382cea013865e6d25aa9d7902c5a60bcce4efb35db341ea.png)

Thats excellent ... whens that from exactly ? .. i..e what date are these figures from & are they from a census or what?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on June 01, 2017, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
The evolution of the 6 county population

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74f03386ad0ef7cb5382cea013865e6d25aa9d7902c5a60bcce4efb35db341ea.png)

Thats excellent ... whens that from exactly ? .. i..e what date are these figures from & are they from a census or what?

At this link it says 2014

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241162.0
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
I imagine this is based on the 2011 census, which would imply that things had already moved along a bit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 06:37:10 PM
This is a far better representation of demographic shift again using the 2011 census. Saw it a while back for each county and someone on slugger posted this image for the whole of Northern Ireland. The other big milestone that has already happened (end of last year) is that the number of people from a Catholic community background is now greater than those from the Protestant community background.

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/df31eca1beb7222142c8efcbd084385ac6807a6c39d00368e55983221a888f1f.png?w=600&h=221)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: dec on June 01, 2017, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
The evolution of the 6 county population

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74f03386ad0ef7cb5382cea013865e6d25aa9d7902c5a60bcce4efb35db341ea.png)

Thats excellent ... whens that from exactly ? .. i..e what date are these figures from & are they from a census or what?

At this link it says 2014

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241162.0

Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
I imagine this is based on the 2011 census, which would imply that things had already moved along a bit.

Yeah I guess it must be from 2011 ... Do the DUP not look at this sorta stuff ... why the feck are they STILL so intransigent, I mean what do they think is going to happen here ... Any sensible group would try and make friends but I guess they just cant help themselves .. ffs ::)

It shouldn't really be such a hardship to "share" the bloody place should it, but I guess when youve had it your own way for so long, its hard to give that up .. whats the next step for them .. I wonder what they're thinking ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 06:48:48 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 06:37:10 PM
This is a far better representation of demographic shift again using the 2011 census. Saw it a while back for each county and someone on slugger posted this image for the whole of Northern Ireland. The other big milestone that has already happened (end of last year) is that the number of people from a Catholic community background is now greater than those from the Protestant community background.

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/df31eca1beb7222142c8efcbd084385ac6807a6c39d00368e55983221a888f1f.png?w=600&h=221)

Ouch !!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: dec on June 01, 2017, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
The evolution of the 6 county population

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74f03386ad0ef7cb5382cea013865e6d25aa9d7902c5a60bcce4efb35db341ea.png)

Thats excellent ... whens that from exactly ? .. i..e what date are these figures from & are they from a census or what?

At this link it says 2014

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241162.0

Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
I imagine this is based on the 2011 census, which would imply that things had already moved along a bit.

Yeah I guess it must be from 2011 ... Do the DUP not look at this sorta stuff ... why the feck are they STILL so intransigent, I mean what do they think is going to happen here ... Any sensible group would try and make friends but I guess they just cant help themselves .. ffs ::)

It shouldn't really be such a hardship to "share" the bloody place should it, but I guess when youve had it your own way for so long, its hard to give that up .. whats the next step for them .. I wonder what they're thinking ?

The DUP will bury their head in the sand and ignore what is blatantly coming. The other picture I posted from slugger got a reply from a guy who claims to be a liberal unionist labour supporter living in England with a background in statistics and quite honestly it was staright out of the DUP handbook of denial. Basically all those non-religion and others from the census are lapsed Protestants and Unionists - unbelievable horseshit. The Catholic growth is all due to immigrants who couldnt give a stuff about Irish nationalism no mention about the equally high number of Protestant born outside the UK etc etc etc basically in complete denial
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 01, 2017, 07:05:32 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: dec on June 01, 2017, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
The evolution of the 6 county population

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74f03386ad0ef7cb5382cea013865e6d25aa9d7902c5a60bcce4efb35db341ea.png)

Thats excellent ... whens that from exactly ? .. i..e what date are these figures from & are they from a census or what?

At this link it says 2014

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241162.0

Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
I imagine this is based on the 2011 census, which would imply that things had already moved along a bit.

Yeah I guess it must be from 2011 ... Do the DUP not look at this sorta stuff ... why the feck are they STILL so intransigent, I mean what do they think is going to happen here ... Any sensible group would try and make friends but I guess they just cant help themselves .. ffs ::)

It shouldn't really be such a hardship to "share" the bloody place should it, but I guess when youve had it your own way for so long, its hard to give that up .. whats the next step for them .. I wonder what they're thinking ?

The DUP will bury their head in the sand and ignore what is blatantly coming. The other picture I posted from slugger got a reply from a guy who claims to be a liberal unionist labour supporter living in England with a background in statistics and quite honestly it was staright out of the DUP handbook of denial. Basically all those non-religion and others from the census are lapsed Protestants and Unionists - unbelievable horseshit. The Catholic growth is all due to immigrants who couldnt give a stuff about Irish nationalism no mention about the equally high number of Protestant born outside the UK etc etc etc basically in complete denial
The dup will bury their head in the sand as distinct from the Provos who bury the whole body
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 07:27:34 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
The DUP will bury their head in the sand and ignore what is blatantly coming. The other picture I posted from slugger got a reply from a guy who claims to be a liberal unionist labour supporter living in England with a background in statistics and quite honestly it was staright out of the DUP handbook of denial. Basically all those non-religion and others from the census are lapsed Protestants and Unionists - unbelievable horseshit. The Catholic growth is all due to immigrants who couldn't give a stuff about Irish nationalism no mention about the equally high number of Protestant born outside the UK etc etc etc basically in complete denial

I'd say there is a fair sprinkling of Poles etc who will now take out British citizenship (post Brexit), but might well not be big fans of the the DUP notwithstanding their use of their new British passports at polling stations. The DUP Brexit idiocy both give these people a reason to end up on the voting register, and to use their vote to get out of the UK back into the EU!!

The Unionists never never learn. That giant of the political scene, Robin Swann, has characterised calls for special post-Brexit status for North as a 'back door bid to unite Ireland', when of course any rational political thinker would see it as the exact opposite, a measure of flexibility to prevent the whole thing pulling apart.

Unfortunately thoough, nationalism is represented largely by SF who are entirely incapable of putting forward a credible economic model for the way forward, so these small minds will not be called out on their nonsense.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 07:51:21 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 01, 2017, 07:05:32 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: dec on June 01, 2017, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
The evolution of the 6 county population

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74f03386ad0ef7cb5382cea013865e6d25aa9d7902c5a60bcce4efb35db341ea.png)

Thats excellent ... whens that from exactly ? .. i..e what date are these figures from & are they from a census or what?

At this link it says 2014

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241162.0

Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
I imagine this is based on the 2011 census, which would imply that things had already moved along a bit.

Yeah I guess it must be from 2011 ... Do the DUP not look at this sorta stuff ... why the feck are they STILL so intransigent, I mean what do they think is going to happen here ... Any sensible group would try and make friends but I guess they just cant help themselves .. ffs ::)

It shouldn't really be such a hardship to "share" the bloody place should it, but I guess when youve had it your own way for so long, its hard to give that up .. whats the next step for them .. I wonder what they're thinking ?

The DUP will bury their head in the sand and ignore what is blatantly coming. The other picture I posted from slugger got a reply from a guy who claims to be a liberal unionist labour supporter living in England with a background in statistics and quite honestly it was staright out of the DUP handbook of denial. Basically all those non-religion and others from the census are lapsed Protestants and Unionists - unbelievable horseshit. The Catholic growth is all due to immigrants who couldnt give a stuff about Irish nationalism no mention about the equally high number of Protestant born outside the UK etc etc etc basically in complete denial
The dup will bury their head in the sand as distinct from the Provos who bury the whole body

Be quiet Ruth  ;) .. there's people actually trying to discuss stuff here .. there's a good girl !!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
The DUP will bury their head in the sand and ignore what is blatantly coming. The other picture I posted from slugger got a reply from a guy who claims to be a liberal unionist labour supporter living in England with a background in statistics and quite honestly it was staright out of the DUP handbook of denial. Basically all those non-religion and others from the census are lapsed Protestants and Unionists - unbelievable horseshit. The Catholic growth is all due to immigrants who couldnt give a stuff about Irish nationalism no mention about the equally high number of Protestant born outside the UK etc etc etc basically in complete denial


Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 07:27:34 PM

I'd say there is a fair sprinkling of Poles etc who will now take out British citizenship (post Brexit), but might well not be big fans of the the DUP notwithstanding their use of their new British passports at polling stations. The DUP Brexit idiocy both give these people a reason to end up on the voting register, and to use their vote to get out of the UK back into the EU!!

The Unionists never never learn. That giant of the political scene, Robin Swann, has characterised calls for special post-Brexit status for North as a 'back door bid to unite Ireland', when of course any rational political thinker would see it as the exact opposite, a measure of flexibility to prevent the whole thing pulling apart.

Unfortunately thoough, nationalism is represented largely by SF who are entirely incapable of putting forward a credible economic model for the way forward, so these small minds will not be called out on their nonsense.

Is that really it, .. they just wont let themselves believe its happening ? ... thats funny about yer man saying that all the increase in Taigs is down to immigrants .. how mad is that ..Good Grief  :o

Ah well, they're their own worst enemy !!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 01, 2017, 08:24:33 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 06:37:10 PM
This is a far better representation of demographic shift again using the 2011 census. Saw it a while back for each county and someone on slugger posted this image for the whole of Northern Ireland. The other big milestone that has already happened (end of last year) is that the number of people from a Catholic community background is now greater than those from the Protestant community background.

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/df31eca1beb7222142c8efcbd084385ac6807a6c39d00368e55983221a888f1f.png?w=600&h=221)

The redder the area, the better quality of the land.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on June 01, 2017, 08:45:09 PM
The only thing that all this indicates is that Prods live longer than Taigs.

It hardly takes a rocket scientists to work it out that all that tee-totaling and clean living would contribute to a longer lifespan
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 01, 2017, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2017, 08:45:09 PM
The only thing that all this indicates is that Prods live longer than Taigs.

It hardly takes a rocket scientists to work it out that all that tee-totaling and clean living would contribute to a longer lifespan
Surely that advantage would be cancelled out by all that home made jam and cream sponges
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hotrocks on June 01, 2017, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 01, 2017, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2017, 08:45:09 PM
The only thing that all this indicates is that Prods live longer than Taigs.

It hardly takes a rocket scientists to work it out that all that tee-totaling and clean living would contribute to a longer lifespan
Surely that advantage would be cancelled out by all that home made jam and cream sponges

Poor cub!  :(
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Horse Box on June 02, 2017, 01:52:54 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 01, 2017, 07:05:32 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: dec on June 01, 2017, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on June 01, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
The evolution of the 6 county population

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74f03386ad0ef7cb5382cea013865e6d25aa9d7902c5a60bcce4efb35db341ea.png)

Thats excellent ... whens that from exactly ? .. i..e what date are these figures from & are they from a census or what?

At this link it says 2014

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241162.0

Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
I imagine this is based on the 2011 census, which would imply that things had already moved along a bit.

Yeah I guess it must be from 2011 ... Do the DUP not look at this sorta stuff ... why the feck are they STILL so intransigent, I mean what do they think is going to happen here ... Any sensible group would try and make friends but I guess they just cant help themselves .. ffs ::)

It shouldn't really be such a hardship to "share" the bloody place should it, but I guess when youve had it your own way for so long, its hard to give that up .. whats the next step for them .. I wonder what they're thinking ?

The DUP will bury their head in the sand and ignore what is blatantly coming. The other picture I posted from slugger got a reply from a guy who claims to be a liberal unionist labour supporter living in England with a background in statistics and quite honestly it was staright out of the DUP handbook of denial. Basically all those non-religion and others from the census are lapsed Protestants and Unionists - unbelievable horseshit. The Catholic growth is all due to immigrants who couldnt give a stuff about Irish nationalism no mention about the equally high number of Protestant born outside the UK etc etc etc basically in complete denial
The dup will bury their head in the sand as distinct from the Provos who bury the whole body

::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 02, 2017, 04:45:01 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 01, 2017, 07:27:34 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
The DUP will bury their head in the sand and ignore what is blatantly coming. The other picture I posted from slugger got a reply from a guy who claims to be a liberal unionist labour supporter living in England with a background in statistics and quite honestly it was staright out of the DUP handbook of denial. Basically all those non-religion and others from the census are lapsed Protestants and Unionists - unbelievable horseshit. The Catholic growth is all due to immigrants who couldn't give a stuff about Irish nationalism no mention about the equally high number of Protestant born outside the UK etc etc etc basically in complete denial

I'd say there is a fair sprinkling of Poles etc who will now take out British citizenship (post Brexit), but might well not be big fans of the the DUP notwithstanding their use of their new British passports at polling stations. The DUP Brexit idiocy both give these people a reason to end up on the voting register, and to use their vote to get out of the UK back into the EU!!

The Unionists never never learn. That giant of the political scene, Robin Swann, has characterised calls for special post-Brexit status for North as a 'back door bid to unite Ireland', when of course any rational political thinker would see it as the exact opposite, a measure of flexibility to prevent the whole thing pulling apart.

Unfortunately thoough, nationalism is represented largely by SF who are entirely incapable of putting forward a credible economic model for the way forward, so these small minds will not be called out on their nonsense.

Did you see Martin Wolf''s article on the implications of "no deal"? 
https://www.ft.com/content/83396e2a-45ef-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996

It is pie in the sky to think the UK can walk away. NI exports a lot of food products which would be hit with tariffs in excess of 40%. The Tories don't care. They are all mainlining a new drug called strong and stable.

NI doesnt just need economic reform. It would also need to have an economy that works under Brexit cos the Block Grant might be a nice target for a big juicy cut when the Brexit chickens come home to.roost.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 03, 2017, 03:00:49 AM
There is a guy posting on Slugger who is an Alliance person, who summed up how thing have changed  fairly well

If brexit leads to real problems - it's very much an "if" but we have no way of quantifying it - the union will suddenly start to look very expensive.

I've never voted for a nationalist party and I never expected there to be a border poll in my lifetime. Brexit has fundamentally changed my perspective on all of this. I'm not being drawn on my constitutional opinion for the moment, but I expect that I will do if the trajectory of British politics doesn't return to some kind of sanity


and also

I have no time whatsoever for SF's nonsense and up until last June I didn't give Irish reunification a passing thought. The attitude of Unionism since that time - basically telling me to shove my Remain vote - has caused me to visit that perspective. I'm continuing to turn it over in my mind.

I wonder how many of us, those of us in the centre of politics who care for solving practical problems and a quiet life, find themselves reaching for the idea of constitutional change on the top shelf and blowing the dust off. SF didn't do this - it was Arlene Foster.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 03, 2017, 11:28:48 AM
Now if only SF, SDLP and then FF, FG and the rest would only have some outline of how they see the future All Ireland set up in their glossy documents.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on June 03, 2017, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 03, 2017, 11:28:48 AM
Now if only SF, SDLP and then FF, FG and the rest would only have some outline of how they see the future All Ireland set up in their glossy documents.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2016/Towards-a-United-Ireland.pdf
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 03, 2017, 11:42:52 AM
A discussion document that "is not descriptive of the shape of a United Ireland".
I suppose it's better than the blanks from the other parties.....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 03, 2017, 11:55:14 AM
There is a great deal of work to do here and there is a huge gap on the economic analysis side.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 03, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
If the DUP had any cop on they would start looking at a better economic model for NI with less waste of human potential. There doesn't necessarily have to be a united Ireland but there does have to be change
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 03, 2017, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 03, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
If the DUP had any cop on they would start looking at a better economic model for NI with less waste of human potential. There doesn't necessarily have to be a united Ireland but there does have to be change

Why on earth would they do this. Having a big subsidy is preventing discussion of a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 03, 2017, 02:02:24 PM
Jesus, it sounds grim up North
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 03, 2017, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 03, 2017, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 03, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
If the DUP had any cop on they would start looking at a better economic model for NI with less waste of human potential. There doesn't necessarily have to be a united Ireland but there does have to be change

Why on earth would they do this. Having a big subsidy is preventing discussion of a UI.
If the Tories win and they go through with no deal there will be food riots in England
The £9bn assumes business as usual.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 10, 2017, 10:07:36 AM
Update on current statistics:

(http://i.imgur.com/7d3OoWv.jpg?2)

Not much credibility in calling for a border poll based the last general election results with the unionist vote reawakened by the previous result in the assembly election.  It would just be a form of agitation.

A border poll would result in an increased turnout but it would not significantly change the situation because as many sleeping unionists would turnout, particularly in the loyalist community, as non-voting nationalists.

In particular, the figures above would assume that all SDLP voters would opt for a UI but this would be far from a certainty.

There is a warning for SF that a resurgent unionist vote could make a big difference to the current assembly position of the party if the DUP were to ask their partners in the UK government for a new assembly ballot.  The SF vote has maxed out in the last election as they were able to tap into SDLP vote and sleeping nationalist voters in South Down, FST and North Belfast.



Note that the SDLP vote held up even though they lost their seats but the APNI had a bad election as their unionist voters shifted allegiance. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 10, 2017, 10:11:46 AM
If they are voting for a Nationalist party the it is reasonable to have a poll on that basis. But nobody will vote for a UI unless there is a plan, including many SF voters who are wedded to public expenditure not freeing the country.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 10, 2017, 11:21:52 AM
No point sitting back waiting for the demographic to kick in. A lot of those will become apolitical as they become bored if all they hear is SF chanting "Border poll now" ad infinitum........

A plan and a vision please.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 10, 2017, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 10, 2017, 10:07:36 AM
Update on current statistics:

(http://i.imgur.com/7d3OoWv.jpg?2)

Not much credibility in calling for a border poll based the last general election results with the unionist vote reawakened by the previous result in the assembly election.  It would just be a form of agitation.

A border poll would result in an increased turnout but it would not significantly change the situation because as many sleeping unionists would turnout, particularly in the loyalist community, as non-voting nationalists.

In particular, the figures above would assume that all SDLP voters would opt for a UI but this would be far from a certainty.

There is a warning for SF that a resurgent unionist vote could make a big difference to the current assembly position of the party if the DUP were to ask their partners in the UK government for a new assembly ballot.  The SF vote has maxed out in the last election as they were able to tap into SDLP vote and sleeping nationalist voters in South Down, FST and North Belfast.



Note that the SDLP vote held up even though they lost their seats but the APNI had a bad election as their unionist voters shifted allegiance.

The pbp did get votes in the 2017 GE not many but all the same so those figures need double checking
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 10, 2017, 08:43:32 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 10, 2017, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 10, 2017, 10:07:36 AM
Update on current statistics:

(http://i.imgur.com/7d3OoWv.jpg?2)

Not much credibility in calling for a border poll based the last general election results with the unionist vote reawakened by the previous result in the assembly election.  It would just be a form of agitation.

A border poll would result in an increased turnout but it would not significantly change the situation because as many sleeping unionists would turnout, particularly in the loyalist community, as non-voting nationalists.

In particular, the figures above would assume that all SDLP voters would opt for a UI but this would be far from a certainty.

There is a warning for SF that a resurgent unionist vote could make a big difference to the current assembly position of the party if the DUP were to ask their partners in the UK government for a new assembly ballot.  The SF vote has maxed out in the last election as they were able to tap into SDLP vote and sleeping nationalist voters in South Down, FST and North Belfast.



Note that the SDLP vote held up even though they lost their seats but the APNI had a bad election as their unionist voters shifted allegiance.

The pbp did get votes in the 2017 GE not many but all the same so those figures need double checking

Go right ahead.  As Hardy requested referencing on another thread.  I used Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results/northern_ireland

So, I welcome your double checking.  I took the Others column from BBC as Sylvia Hermon. Feel free to calculate the PBP results and recalculate the current difference between Nationalist/Republican and Unionist votes.  It will still result in demanding a border poll now as nothing more than agitation for its own sake.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 10, 2017, 09:10:53 PM
It doesn't matter what happens this year. The demographics do not favour the Unionists. Nothing can be guaranteed by them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 10, 2017, 09:29:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 10, 2017, 09:10:53 PM
It doesn't matter what happens this year. The demographics do not favour the Unionists. Nothing can be guaranteed by them.

That's not news but the demographic effect will take many years to affect the voting dynamic and until it can be shown that there is a real possibility that a border poll would produce a result in favour of a UI, there is no point in calling for a border poll.  Even with the changing demographic at the lower ages, the voting population change in terms of religion will take many years because the population is growing older as people live longer.  In addition, religious affiliation will not determine the result of a border poll.  The key statistic from above will be the number making up the middle ground and the number of those currently voting SDLP who are actually nationalists who really want a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 17, 2017, 01:52:17 PM
Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 2016 survey was carried out between 12th September 2016 and 22nd December 2016.

(http://i.imgur.com/Rmd5e5I.jpg)

70% of SDLP voters said they were not in favour of a united Ireland.

Support for a united Ireland amongst Alliance voters was 21% in 2016, compared with 12% in 2015 and 8% in 2014.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 17, 2017, 02:50:57 PM
These surveys are meaningless. No rational person can be in favour of a United Ireland without a plan. People vote for the SDLP to have such a plan produced.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 17, 2017, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 17, 2017, 02:50:57 PM
These surveys are meaningless. No rational person can be in favour of a United Ireland without a plan. People vote for the SDLP to have such a plan produced.
Adlai Stevenson was Democratic candidate in the 1952 presidential election. He was told he would have the support of all thinking people. "Yes, but I need a majority".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 17, 2017, 06:44:08 PM
It also said 23% of Sinn Fein voters would not vote in favour of a United Ireland.

There is no plan for a Unitec Ireland,because it is not desired North or South.So the only viable options are settle down under British Rule or develop a plan for Northern Irish Independence
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 17, 2017, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 17, 2017, 06:44:08 PM
It also said 23% of Sinn Fein voters would not vote in favour of a United Ireland.

There is no plan for a Unitec Ireland,because it is not desired North or South.So the only viable options are settle down under British Rule or develop a plan for Northern Irish Independence
Why not a confederation with Scotland? With the chip each of them have on their shoulder the situation would be evenly balanced.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 17, 2017, 07:33:18 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 17, 2017, 06:44:08 PM
It also said 23% of Sinn Fein voters would not vote in favour of a United Ireland.

There is no plan for a Unitec Ireland,because it is not desired North or South.So the only viable options are settle down under British Rule or develop a plan for Northern Irish Independence

Every poll shows a majority for a UI in the south and even the data you purposes suggests that at least three quarters of SF voters in the 6 counties are in favour. The proportion in favour of an independent NI is a about the same as those who prefer football in Kilkenny.

We haven't been at the plan stage, but the demographics continue to move and this Brexit thing will run and run to destabilise the status quo.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 17, 2017, 08:12:55 PM
Where is this plan then? 100 years and no sign,Brexit is the opportunity,but still no plan...because neither major party in the South wants unity.If they did a plan would at least be in the development stages
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 17, 2017, 08:13:08 PM
A hundred years ago, people would have taken a United Ireland no question. They had nothing to lose. The country was in poverty, living in poor housing, particularly in the cities. Dublin's housing slums were said to be among the worst in europe. There were no benefits, pensions, nhs etc. People have too much to lose potentially, by going into a UI. In a way, people are too well off now. A lot may be really struggling, but they're still better off in many ways than 100 years ago.

The only way people will push for a UI is if conditions go back to as bad as then. That's why some don't support a UI. Because they'd be worst off. Completely reasonable that. Nothing wrong with looking after yourself and your family. No other w****.r is gonna do it!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on June 17, 2017, 08:15:09 PM
I asked on another site what the specific question was that was asked that delivered the stated results. Was there a time limit or was it an "any time in the future" question?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 17, 2017, 08:24:12 PM
As Sir Billy Connolly once said "The Future doesn't exist".All that matters is the present.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on June 17, 2017, 08:47:31 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 17, 2017, 08:24:12 PM
As Sir Billy Connolly once said "The Future doesn't exist".All that matters is the present.
Well sure that settles it then Tony....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 17, 2017, 09:51:25 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 17, 2017, 08:24:12 PM
As Sir Billy Connolly once said "The Future doesn't exist".All that matters is the present.

He'll always just be Billy to me.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 17, 2017, 09:55:18 PM
I think Helmut Kohl's death illustrates the point. West Germany wasn't too bothered about unity before 1989 and the didn't necessarily think it entirely a good thing afterwards, but there was great enthusiasm at the time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on June 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 17, 2017, 06:44:08 PM
It also said 23% of Sinn Fein voters would not vote in favour of a United Ireland.

There is no plan for a Unitec Ireland,because it is not desired North or South.So the only viable options are settle down under British Rule or develop a plan for Northern Irish Independence

"Unitec Ireland"? Or your earlier reference to a "route cause"?
Not only are you a complete idiot, but you are an illiterate one. Go to primary school, learn some grammar & spelling, then come back & bore everyone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: UlsterMan2 on June 18, 2017, 02:27:30 AM
Never mind all the probables, does the sheer patriotism not want us all to be united?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 07:10:14 AM
Patriotism wants us to have a plan.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 07:53:49 AM
Pragmatism trumps patriotism,I'm afraid.See the reaction of real British people at the prospect of the DUP in government at Westminster."Crackpots" they're called.It's even worse in Dublin when both main parties in an unprecedented move,co operate together in Government rather than doing a deal with SF.

It's time all the people of the North accept that neither London nor Dublin wants us.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 18, 2017, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 17, 2017, 09:55:18 PM
I think Helmut Kohl's death illustrates the point. West Germany wasn't too bothered about unity before 1989 and the didn't necessarily think it entirely a good thing afterwards, but there was great enthusiasm at the time.

The problems of unification of Germany are still present after 27 years and will probably take several generations to alleviate and that was a country divided only for about 45 years.  The recent influx of migrants from Syria and beyond knew enough not to re-settle in the East despite that being the plan of Angela Merkel as the region remains underpopulated and still running behind the West of the country.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 18, 2017, 10:00:19 AM
Quote from: UlsterMan2 on June 18, 2017, 02:27:30 AM
Never mind all the probables, does the sheer patriotism not want us all to be united?

Patriotism leads many to wish that a united ireland was possible. Doesn't mean they would vote for it. Most of them know that you can't wish something into viability
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 18, 2017, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 17, 2017, 09:55:18 PM
I think Helmut Kohl's death illustrates the point. West Germany wasn't too bothered about unity before 1989 and the didn't necessarily think it entirely a good thing afterwards, but there was great enthusiasm at the time.

The problems of unification of Germany are still present after 27 years and will probably take several generations to alleviate and that was a country divided only for about 45 years.  The recent influx of migrants from Syria and beyond knew enough not to re-settle in the East despite that being the plan of Angela Merkel as the region remains underpopulated and still running behind the West of the country.

Would East Germany be less depopulated or have more Syrians if there had not been unity?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 18, 2017, 10:49:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 18, 2017, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 17, 2017, 09:55:18 PM
I think Helmut Kohl's death illustrates the point. West Germany wasn't too bothered about unity before 1989 and the didn't necessarily think it entirely a good thing afterwards, but there was great enthusiasm at the time.

The problems of unification of Germany are still present after 27 years and will probably take several generations to alleviate and that was a country divided only for about 45 years.  The recent influx of migrants from Syria and beyond knew enough not to re-settle in the East despite that being the plan of Angela Merkel as the region remains underpopulated and still running behind the West of the country.

Would East Germany be less depopulated or have more Syrians if there had not been unity?

With the removal of the control by the defunct USSR, East Germany could have joined the EU in its own right but it would have experienced the same population movement that occurred in the adjacent east European countries.  The point is that despite unification and taxation of the existing German population for this purpose, East Germany has not reached an equalisation with West Germany in terms of economic growth and re-industrialisation hence its population has decreased as some migrated to the wealthy West.  This created a chicken and egg scenario as industry required trained employees, those potential employees have moved to the West region so industry has not grown.  Merkel gambled that the East could absorb Syrians coming from a formerly advanced society with good levels of education but instead they have remained in the more affluent West and were less welcome in the East in the same way as occurred in other east European countries.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 10:58:31 AM
East Germany is of some use as an analogy, but it's relevance should not be overstated. NI has not had an entirely different economic structure as the DDR had. NI's problems are bigotry and being run as a branch operation. The only cure, however long it takes, for bigotry is to end the entity set up to promote bigotry. There seems no reason why the economy should remain hugely different in Newry than Dundalk.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on June 18, 2017, 11:00:01 AM
QuoteThe problems of unification of Germany are still present after 27 years and will probably take several generations to alleviate and that was a country divided only for about 45 years.  The recent influx of migrants from Syria and beyond knew enough not to re-settle in the East despite that being the plan of Angela Merkel as the region remains underpopulated and still running behind the West of the country.

It isn't apples for apples.  East Germany was an impoverished communist wasteland.  Although the north is no longer an industrial powerhouse, the massive differentiation between East / West Germany in no way compares to the north / south situation on this island.  Yes, there will be teething problems with any unification process that will take years to sort itself out.  This whole discussion needs to be looked on from the context of a new Ireland, as opposed to a United Ireland ... the latter has too many SF related connotations for our unionist neighbours.  I seen Varadkar eluded to it the other day, we need to be open to a unified island with a Dail in Dublin, and a set-up of some sort in the north as well to recognise the almost 1 million who consider themselves British.  Under normal circumstances in Westminster, Unionist representation is less than 2%.  In an All-Ireland context, this would be around 18%.  With electoral boundary changes on the way in the north next year, resulting in possible 3 less Unionist seats, the writing really is on the wall for the whole Unionist project.  They've had almost 100 years of it, and the north is only a shadow of it's former industrial self as a result, with the knock-on impact on the border counties in the south as well.

I think there would be massive positive feedback to reunification from the international community, with subsequent influx of investment, tourism etc. all wanting to be part of this new nation state.  Interesting times ahead. 

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 18, 2017, 11:03:05 AM
Almost everyone now accepts that ther will never be a united ireland unless people vote for it in 2 separate referenda. All sensible people realise that to get people to vote for it they will have to set out the economic arguments that will win the day in the north and separately in the south.

If you are hoping for a united ireland in the next 50 years you might want to ask yourself what is this compelling economic argument going to look like? Who is working on the detail of it and who is going to make the case for it?

Otherwise what is the point?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 18, 2017, 11:23:42 AM
Pension funds today just speculate money. They don't invest much. I think roi Pension funds have €100 bn. 20% of that invested in giving the north a kick up the arse and boosting productivity could do a lot. The biggest obstacles appear to be psychological.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 18, 2017, 11:03:05 AM
Almost everyone now accepts that ther will never be a united ireland unless people vote for it in 2 separate referenda. All sensible people realise that to get people to vote for it they will have to set out the economic arguments that will win the day in the north and separately in the south.

If you are hoping for a united ireland in the next 50 years you might want to ask yourself what is this compelling economic argument going to look like? Who is working on the detail of it and who is going to make the case for it?

Otherwise what is the point?

The reason for a UI is to remove division and end a situation where people in the 6 counties are second class citizens in a colony. However a workable economic model is required to do this.

Sadly, so called 'nationalist' politicians in NI have done little or nothing to advance thinking in this regard and haven't shown any sign of the ability to do so.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 18, 2017, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 18, 2017, 11:03:05 AM
Almost everyone now accepts that ther will never be a united ireland unless people vote for it in 2 separate referenda. All sensible people realise that to get people to vote for it they will have to set out the economic arguments that will win the day in the north and separately in the south.

If you are hoping for a united ireland in the next 50 years you might want to ask yourself what is this compelling economic argument going to look like? Who is working on the detail of it and who is going to make the case for it?

Otherwise what is the point?

The reason for a UI is to remove division and end a situation where people in the 6 counties are second class citizens in a colony. However a workable economic model is required to do this.

Sadly, so called 'nationalist' politicians in NI have done little or nothing to advance thinking in this regard and haven't shown any sign of the ability to do so.

That's the key point, whether laziness or more likely a talent deficit given the SF economic illiteracy, it is much easy to be rhetorical in your demands for a UI and to use it as an irritant to half of the community as part of the long cultural war being fought at present.  No sense that there is a desire to realise that a successful unification needs a plan based on economics, cultural diversity and reconciliation or we just repeat the period from 1968 to 1998.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Kilkevan on June 18, 2017, 01:39:59 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 17, 2017, 02:50:57 PM
These surveys are meaningless. No rational person can be in favour of a United Ireland without a plan. People vote for the SDLP to have such a plan produced.

https://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 18, 2017, 02:19:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 18, 2017, 11:03:05 AM
Almost everyone now accepts that ther will never be a united ireland unless people vote for it in 2 separate referenda. All sensible people realise that to get people to vote for it they will have to set out the economic arguments that will win the day in the north and separately in the south.

If you are hoping for a united ireland in the next 50 years you might want to ask yourself what is this compelling economic argument going to look like? Who is working on the detail of it and who is going to make the case for it?

Otherwise what is the point?

The reason for a UI is to remove division and end a situation where people in the 6 counties are second class citizens in a colony. However a workable economic model is required to do this.

Sadly, so called 'nationalist' politicians in NI have done little or nothing to advance thinking in this regard and haven't shown any sign of the ability to do so.

How would a united ireland fix a division?

In what sense are people in NI second class citizens? Who are the first class citizens?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 18, 2017, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 18, 2017, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 18, 2017, 11:03:05 AM
Almost everyone now accepts that ther will never be a united ireland unless people vote for it in 2 separate referenda. All sensible people realise that to get people to vote for it they will have to set out the economic arguments that will win the day in the north and separately in the south.

If you are hoping for a united ireland in the next 50 years you might want to ask yourself what is this compelling economic argument going to look like? Who is working on the detail of it and who is going to make the case for it?

Otherwise what is the point?

The reason for a UI is to remove division and end a situation where people in the 6 counties are second class citizens in a colony. However a workable economic model is required to do this.

Sadly, so called 'nationalist' politicians in NI have done little or nothing to advance thinking in this regard and haven't shown any sign of the ability to do so.

That's the key point, whether laziness or more likely a talent deficit given the SF economic illiteracy, it is much easy to be rhetorical in your demands for a UI and to use it as an irritant to half of the community as part of the long cultural war being fought at present.  No sense that there is a desire to realise that a successful unification needs a plan based on economics, cultural diversity and reconciliation or we just repeat the period from 1968 to 1998.

The argument of laziness and/or talent deficit only gets you so far. If the argument is not there to be made the talent or work ethic of person expected to make the argument is an irrelevance
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 04:31:38 PM
Unionists will not sell their perceived birthright for economic gain.If they were amenable to this then they would have done so during the Celtic Tiger era (not that the North was wanted by Dublin).

The real and only hope is for the Northern Irish community to oust the toxic and divisive unionist and nationalist ideologies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 18, 2017, 07:11:12 PM
And how do you propose to do that, T?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 08:04:12 PM

As the prominent surgeon,Protestant and pro Irish Unity,John Robb has been saying for years,both London and Dublin should,in tandem,renounce their constitutional claim to the North (I suppose Dublin has done this already,with the abolition of Articles 2 and 3.

Start with the sizeable number of people in the North who don't vote.

Offer them an alternative to sterile zero sum Unionist v nationalist politics.

Build momentum and draw in slow learners who are still deluded unionists or nationalists
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 18, 2017, 08:46:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 04:31:38 PM
Unionists will not sell their perceived birthright for economic gain.If they were amenable to this then they would have done so during the Celtic Tiger era (not that the North was wanted by Dublin).

The real and only hope is for the Northern Irish community to oust the toxic and divisive unionist and nationalist ideologies.
Unionists don't have an identity beyond the ideology. It really is all about no.
SF isn't great but it could never be as deluded as the DUP
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 08:49:59 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 04:31:38 PM
Unionists will not sell their perceived birthright for economic gain.If they were amenable to this then they would have done so during the Celtic Tiger era (not that the North was wanted by Dublin).

The issue is not unionists, the issue is that at present no serious discussion of the many issues that might arise is being undertaken because there is an economic block, one encouraged by the British and the Unionists. The substantial middle ground block do not see a need to seriously consider the issue because the sums (on the information presented) do not add up.

Quote
The real and only hope is for the Northern Irish community to oust the toxic and divisive unionist and nationalist ideologies.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 09:22:52 PM
Read these words slowly.Over the last 100 years Dublin has done nothing to advocate even for a United Ireland,has rescinded its claim to the North and has admitted that Unity is not affordable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 09:46:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 09:22:52 PM
Read these words slowly.Over the last 100 years Dublin has done nothing to advocate even for a United Ireland

Read these words  (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/nifr.htm), you'll probably have to read them slowly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 11:23:50 PM
Yes,that was 33 years ago,all of those party to it are long gone.In any event Thatcher rejected it out of hand.Since then we've had various agreements including the Anglo Irish Agreement,Good Friday etc.

In short it is as relevant today as Xtravision.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 18, 2017, 11:39:08 PM
The Good Friday Agreement indicates how to secure a UI, you just have to get out and vote. The Irish health service does not have a cure for Stockholm Syndrome.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 19, 2017, 10:57:17 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 18, 2017, 09:22:52 PM
Read these words slowly.Over the last 100 years Dublin has done nothing to advocate even for a United Ireland,has rescinded its claim to the North and has admitted that Unity is not affordable.

Dublin's position on a UI is fluid. Dublin did not rescind it's claim for a UI. The claim was rescinded by the people through referendum with the prospect of an end to armed conflict as a result. It's a very narrow argument to make. Are you are leaving out context to make it easier for you to arrive at the wrong place?
Where is there an admission that unity is not affordable? As far as I'm aware it's still an on going debate.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 03:12:48 PM
The fact is that Dublin recommended this to its people,as a preferred outcome.This was akin to Britain surrendering to Germany to maintain peace in 1939.

Jimmy Deenihan,a Dublin Govt minister,admitted in a recent tv debate that Irish Unity wasn't affordable
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 19, 2017, 03:16:46 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 03:12:48 PM
The fact is that Dublin recommended this to its people,as a preferred outcome.This was akin to Britain surrendering to Germany to maintain peace in 1939.

Jimmy Deenihan,a Dublin Govt minister,admitted in a recent tv debate that Irish Unity wasn't affordable

A bit like Brexit, the truth is he is guessing as he has done no such research. This man however has.

https://senatormarkdaly.org/2017/04/13/united-ireland-its-people-in-peace-prosperity-executive-summary/

It's obvious that there will be short term costs but mid-longer term there are obvious benefits.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 19, 2017, 03:18:43 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 03:12:48 PM
The fact is that Dublin recommended this to its people,as a preferred outcome.This was akin to Britain surrendering to Germany to maintain peace in 1939.

Jimmy Deenihan,a Dublin Govt minister,admitted in a recent tv debate that Irish Unity wasn't affordable

It was also recommended by 3 of the 4 main parties in the north, in London & Washington. No it's not akin to that.

He admitted it in a debate that is on going. Is it Government policy that Unity isn't affordable?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 04:08:37 PM
Will someone give me evidence of a serious attempt by the South to promote Irish Unity over the last century?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 04:29:29 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 04:08:37 PM
Will someone give me evidence of a serious attempt by the South to promote Irish Unity over the last century?

Allowing the Brits to use Irish airspace during WW2? That's a unity of sorts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 19, 2017, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 04:08:37 PM
Will someone give me evidence of a serious attempt by the South to promote Irish Unity over the last century?

Of course they should be doing more but when it happens there has to be some level of acceptance from the unionists that it has been reached via a democratic vote and not something that is foisted on them. Listening to Leo Varadkar saying how much of a thrill it was for him to be in 10 Downing Street today wouldn't exactly inspire you with any confidence that he is going to fight any harder for nationalists in the north.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 05:31:27 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 19, 2017, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 04:08:37 PM
Will someone give me evidence of a serious attempt by the South to promote Irish Unity over the last century?

Of course they should be doing more but when it happens there has to be some level of acceptance from the unionists that it has been reached via a democratic vote and not something that is foisted on them. Listening to Leo Varadkar saying how much of a thrill it was for him to be in 10 Downing Street today wouldn't exactly inspire you with any confidence that he is going to fight any harder for nationalists in the north.

He won't. Nor will any of them. The southern politicans are a bunch of arse-lickers when dealing with Britain/EU. They bend over and take everything thrown at them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 19, 2017, 06:13:17 PM
And if you were Taoiseach..........
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 06:29:27 PM
Benny and Yellow, now you're getting it! Dublin doesn't care about us
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 06:32:25 PM
To paraphrase the great Miceal "Leo Varadkar,his father was born in Bombay,his mother in Dungarvan,neither of which are hotbeds of Irish nationalism!"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 19, 2017, 09:48:16 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 19, 2017, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 04:08:37 PM
Will someone give me evidence of a serious attempt by the South to promote Irish Unity over the last century?

Of course they should be doing more but when it happens there has to be some level of acceptance from the unionists that it has been reached via a democratic vote and not something that is foisted on them. Listening to Leo Varadkar saying how much of a thrill it was for him to be in 10 Downing Street today wouldn't exactly inspire you with any confidence that he is going to fight any harder for nationalists in the north.

Tony keeps asking what Dublin have done. This ignores the more important questions of should they do something and why should they do something?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 06:29:27 PM
Benny and Yellow, now you're getting it! Dublin doesn't care about us

It's not that they don't care. It's that the Irish leaders on the world/European stage are insecure, spineless, gutless arselickers. Signing away their natural resources, accepting any sort of ruling on bailouts, lending, EU laws, etc. f**king stand up for yourselves and your people once in a while, and tell them to get fcuked!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 19, 2017, 11:16:13 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 06:29:27 PM
Benny and Yellow, now you're getting it! Dublin doesn't care about us

It's not that they don't care. It's that the Irish leaders on the world/European stage are insecure, spineless, gutless arselickers. Signing away their natural resources, accepting any sort of ruling on bailouts, lending, EU laws, etc. f**king stand up for yourselves and your people once in a while, and tell them to get fcuked!

What natural resources did they sign away?
As for standing up to people, if you don't borrow money from them then you are in a better position to tell them where to go.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 19, 2017, 11:16:13 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 06:29:27 PM
Benny and Yellow, now you're getting it! Dublin doesn't care about us

It's not that they don't care. It's that the Irish leaders on the world/European stage are insecure, spineless, gutless arselickers. Signing away their natural resources, accepting any sort of ruling on bailouts, lending, EU laws, etc. f**king stand up for yourselves and your people once in a while, and tell them to get fcuked!

What natural resources did they sign away?
As for standing up to people, if you don't borrow money from them then you are in a better position to tell them where to go.

Gas, electricity, fishing, forestry for starters. Iceland rejected bailouts, and told them to get stuffed. Ireland could have and should have done likewise.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 19, 2017, 11:48:04 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 11:34:19 PM
Gas, electricity, fishing, forestry for starters. Iceland rejected bailouts, and told them to get stuffed. Ireland could have and should have done likewise.

Please explain how electricity and forestry have been signed away?
Iceland had an IMG programme also and it basically defaulted because it had no choice, with significant adverse consequences for its citizens.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 20, 2017, 08:37:44 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 05:31:27 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 19, 2017, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 04:08:37 PM
Will someone give me evidence of a serious attempt by the South to promote Irish Unity over the last century?

Of course they should be doing more but when it happens there has to be some level of acceptance from the unionists that it has been reached via a democratic vote and not something that is foisted on them. Listening to Leo Varadkar saying how much of a thrill it was for him to be in 10 Downing Street today wouldn't exactly inspire you with any confidence that he is going to fight any harder for nationalists in the north.

He won't. Nor will any of them. The southern politicans are a bunch of arse-lickers when dealing with Britain/EU. They bend over and take everything thrown at them.

Unlike Northern nationalists who are completely self sufficient and do no rely on handouts from anyone
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 20, 2017, 08:41:17 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 19, 2017, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 19, 2017, 04:08:37 PM
Will someone give me evidence of a serious attempt by the South to promote Irish Unity over the last century?

Of course they should be doing more but when it happens there has to be some level of acceptance from the unionists that it has been reached via a democratic vote and not something that is foisted on them. Listening to Leo Varadkar saying how much of a thrill it was for him to be in 10 Downing Street today wouldn't exactly inspire you with any confidence that he is going to fight any harder for nationalists in the north.
Did he visit Madam Tussauds  as well?
Having met the SF and DUP delegation the few days before he probably had enough of dummies with excess make up
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 20, 2017, 08:57:10 AM
Northern Nationalists need to be realistic in their expectations from a Southern Government. At the end of the day the UK Government(probably not through choice) is the sovereign authority in the North, Southern Governments have to be mindful of that and it limits there scope. Like most nationalists the Southern parties do not want to see a forced UI which results in loyalist violence. Before we criticise the south northern nationalists need to decide ourselves if we really want a UI and on what terms. How will it look and what guarantees will it give unionists. I want to see a UI but I do not want a reverse partition where a large swathe of the population are made to feel subservient as we were after partition. I am amazed at the difference in the 6 counties now compared to my childhood in the 60's and I firmly believe the next generation will achieve unity, but it must be fair and inclusive.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 20, 2017, 01:32:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 20, 2017, 08:57:10 AM
Northern Nationalists need to be realistic in their expectations from a Southern Government. At the end of the day the UK Government(probably not through choice) is the sovereign authority in the North, Southern Governments have to be mindful of that and it limits there scope. Like most nationalists the Southern parties do not want to see a forced UI which results in loyalist violence. Before we criticise the south northern nationalists need to decide ourselves if we really want a UI and on what terms. How will it look and what guarantees will it give unionists. I want to see a UI but I do not want a reverse partition where a large swathe of the population are made to feel subservient as we were after partition. I am amazed at the difference in the 6 counties now compared to my childhood in the 60's and I firmly believe the next generation will achieve unity, but it must be fair and inclusive.

Surprising, unexpected and excellent post.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 20, 2017, 01:59:49 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/catholics-waiting-six-months-longer-to-be-housed-than-protestants-in-northern-ireland-report-35844276.html

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 20, 2017, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 19, 2017, 11:48:04 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 19, 2017, 11:34:19 PM
Gas, electricity, fishing, forestry for starters. Iceland rejected bailouts, and told them to get stuffed. Ireland could have and should have done likewise.

Please explain how electricity and forestry have been signed away?
Iceland had an IMG programme also and it basically defaulted because it had no choice, with significant adverse consequences for its citizens.

Just a snippet...

http://www.thejournal.ie/government-to-reveal-which-state-assets-are-up-for-sale-362294-Feb2012/
(http://www.thejournal.ie/government-to-reveal-which-state-assets-are-up-for-sale-362294-Feb2012/)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 20, 2017, 03:00:56 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 20, 2017, 01:32:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 20, 2017, 08:57:10 AM
Northern Nationalists need to be realistic in their expectations from a Southern Government. At the end of the day the UK Government(probably not through choice) is the sovereign authority in the North, Southern Governments have to be mindful of that and it limits there scope. Like most nationalists the Southern parties do not want to see a forced UI which results in loyalist violence. Before we criticise the south northern nationalists need to decide ourselves if we really want a UI and on what terms. How will it look and what guarantees will it give unionists. I want to see a UI but I do not want a reverse partition where a large swathe of the population are made to feel subservient as we were after partition. I am amazed at the difference in the 6 counties now compared to my childhood in the 60's and I firmly believe the next generation will achieve unity, but it must be fair and inclusive.
Why surprising, I try to be consistent except where taking the piss  :D
Surprising, unexpected and excellent post.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 20, 2017, 03:22:17 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 20, 2017, 03:00:56 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 20, 2017, 01:32:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 20, 2017, 08:57:10 AM
Northern Nationalists need to be realistic in their expectations from a Southern Government. At the end of the day the UK Government(probably not through choice) is the sovereign authority in the North, Southern Governments have to be mindful of that and it limits there scope. Like most nationalists the Southern parties do not want to see a forced UI which results in loyalist violence. Before we criticise the south northern nationalists need to decide ourselves if we really want a UI and on what terms. How will it look and what guarantees will it give unionists. I want to see a UI but I do not want a reverse partition where a large swathe of the population are made to feel subservient as we were after partition. I am amazed at the difference in the 6 counties now compared to my childhood in the 60's and I firmly believe the next generation will achieve unity, but it must be fair and inclusive.
Why surprising, I try to be consistent except where taking the piss  :D
Surprising, unexpected and excellent post.

You must be extracting it brave and often!  :)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 21, 2017, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 20, 2017, 03:22:17 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 20, 2017, 03:00:56 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 20, 2017, 01:32:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 20, 2017, 08:57:10 AM
Northern Nationalists need to be realistic in their expectations from a Southern Government. At the end of the day the UK Government(probably not through choice) is the sovereign authority in the North, Southern Governments have to be mindful of that and it limits there scope. Like most nationalists the Southern parties do not want to see a forced UI which results in loyalist violence. Before we criticise the south northern nationalists need to decide ourselves if we really want a UI and on what terms. How will it look and what guarantees will it give unionists. I want to see a UI but I do not want a reverse partition where a large swathe of the population are made to feel subservient as we were after partition. I am amazed at the difference in the 6 counties now compared to my childhood in the 60's and I firmly believe the next generation will achieve unity, but it must be fair and inclusive.
Why surprising, I try to be consistent except where taking the piss  :D
Surprising, unexpected and excellent post.

You must be extracting it brave and often!  :)
Only when its Tony
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on June 25, 2017, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 20, 2017, 01:59:49 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/catholics-waiting-six-months-longer-to-be-housed-than-protestants-in-northern-ireland-report-35844276.html

Is this discrimination though?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 25, 2017, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 25, 2017, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 20, 2017, 01:59:49 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/catholics-waiting-six-months-longer-to-be-housed-than-protestants-in-northern-ireland-report-35844276.html

Is this discrimination though?

Yes. It is well known that the DUP were trying to stop more housing in North Belfast in case Dodds might lose his seat.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 25, 2017, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 25, 2017, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 25, 2017, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 20, 2017, 01:59:49 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/catholics-waiting-six-months-longer-to-be-housed-than-protestants-in-northern-ireland-report-35844276.html

Is this discrimination though?

Yes. It is well known that the DUP were trying to stop more housing in North Belfast in case Dodds might lose his seat.

Sums up why nothing gets sorted out in this sectarian kiphole. Politicans want to hold onto their seats, and their big pay packets.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on June 25, 2017, 05:38:49 PM
QuoteWe need a new approach, one which unlocks unionist opposition to a new Ireland by reminding them of their historic place here and of the positive contribution they have made to society on this island,"

"Instead of concentrating on the negative aspects of our four centuries of shared history I suggest that we embrace the areas of agreement and of co-operation; of good neighbourliness and the common good.

"A truly united Ireland will emerge from the reconciliation of the people of this island based on equality."

"The reality is that in the four hundred years of their presence on this island Protestants and especially northern Protestants, have been woven into the narrative that constitutes the history of Ireland,"
"While that narrative has been at times a troubled one it has also been dynamic."

"So, we have a shared history - we will also have a shared future.

"Our task must be to ensure that it is a shared future which looks after every citizen, and in which everyone accepts the right of the other to be Irish or British - to be unionist or nationalist or republican.

"The Brexit referendum vote last year, the Assembly results in March, the Westminster election results this month and the census conclusions from 2011, are evidence of a shifting demographic and political dynamic in northern politics.

"Within a few short years the potential for a vote to end partition and unite Ireland is a very real possibility."

He called for advocates of unification - both politicians and within society - to "consciously address the genuine fears and concerns of unionists in a meaningful way".

"It also demands that we look at what unionists mean by their sense of Britishness and be willing to explore and to be open to new concepts,"

"Hopefully as part of this process they too will be willing to explore what is meant by Irishness."

"In particular, we need to address the future role of the Orange, its place in an agreed Ireland.

"Of course, that is a challenge also for the Orange and I invite their leaders once again to meet with Sinn Fein."

G Adams yesterday
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 25, 2017, 06:28:06 PM
Whoever wrote that got Gerry is spot on
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on June 26, 2017, 11:59:55 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.
Did you think that all up by yourself?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 26, 2017, 12:19:13 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 26, 2017, 11:59:55 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.
Did you think that all up by yourself?
I did. I have the ability to see through the bullshit emanating from Patnell Sq and Falls Rd unlike the useful idiots who believe that shite
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on June 26, 2017, 04:03:55 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.

That's right  ::)

Ever wondered why Nationalist led councils in the North are more inclined to have sharing agreements in place with the Mayoral type roles and why Unionist led ones don't?

Yip, its those baddies in Sinn Fein.

Avondhu star, educate yourself and form your opinions on the North somewhere other than the Irish Independent and RTÉ.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 26, 2017, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2017, 04:03:55 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.

That's right  ::)

Ever wondered why Nationalist led councils in the North are more inclined to have sharing agreements in place with the Mayoral type roles and why Unionist led ones don't?

Yip, its those baddies in Sinn Fein.

Avondhu star, educate yourself and form your opinions on the North somewhere other than the Irish Independent and RTÉ.
I was thinking that so well said.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on June 26, 2017, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

Agreed. In fact, I'd be pleased to attend Orange parades and participate in 18th century rituals without having the the union jack shoved down my throat.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on June 26, 2017, 04:10:52 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 26, 2017, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2017, 04:03:55 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.

That's right  ::)

Ever wondered why Nationalist led councils in the North are more inclined to have sharing agreements in place with the Mayoral type roles and why Unionist led ones don't?

Yip, its those baddies in Sinn Fein.

Avondhu star, educate yourself and form your opinions on the North somewhere other than the Irish Independent and RTÉ.
I was thinking that so well said.

Just look at East Belfast. There's been a shed load of money spent in the east on the CS Lewis square, walkways/paths and bridges. Not one tourist in sight, which is no bad thing because there are some very ugly bonfire sites beside the paths.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 27, 2017, 09:58:06 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 26, 2017, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2017, 04:03:55 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.

That's right  ::)

Ever wondered why Nationalist led councils in the North are more inclined to have sharing agreements in place with the Mayoral type roles and why Unionist led ones don't?

Yip, its those baddies in Sinn Fein.

Avondhu star, educate yourself and form your opinions on the North somewhere other than the Irish Independent and RTÉ.
I was thinking that so well said.

Who voted against Croke pk being opened to rugby?
Who voted against admitting PSNI
Who was jumping up and down against the dup and now have got their hole opened by Arlene and are doing their best to crawl back into Stormont with Arlene still boss?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 27, 2017, 10:17:10 AM
I didn't know SF had a vote at GAA Congress?!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 10:45:10 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 27, 2017, 10:17:10 AM
I didn't know SF had a vote at GAA Congress?!!
Don't you know they were also the cause of the tower block blaze in London, war in Syria and Famine in Sudan.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on June 27, 2017, 12:07:41 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 27, 2017, 09:58:06 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 26, 2017, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2017, 04:03:55 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.

That's right  ::)

Ever wondered why Nationalist led councils in the North are more inclined to have sharing agreements in place with the Mayoral type roles and why Unionist led ones don't?

Yip, its those baddies in Sinn Fein.

Avondhu star, educate yourself and form your opinions on the North somewhere other than the Irish Independent and RTÉ.
I was thinking that so well said.

Who voted against Croke pk being opened to rugby?
Who voted against admitting PSNI
Who was jumping up and down against the dup and now have got their hole opened by Arlene and are doing their best to crawl back into Stormont with Arlene still boss?

Shinners had no vote on Croke Park being opened and IIRC Cork CB also voted against it. Never knew Frank Murphy was a Shinner.
See first part of above. The timeline for the allowing of security force personnel to join the GAA was before the implementation of the Patten report and IIRC was Seany Kelly being the lick ado politician that he finally became.
Alliance, the UUP and the SDLP were the first to jump up and down about Arlene when the RHI scandal broke. In fact the Shinners were being criticised for not jumping soon enough and when Martin did he and the Shinners were singled out, but not Naomi Long, Mike TV or Eastwood, why was that?
Will they go back into Stormont with Arlene at the helm? Who knows, but you'll be ready with your ill informed views either way that (a) if the do go back, they've been outmaneuvered by Arlene, blah blah blah or (b) they don't go back so they're then solely responsible for direct rule from Westminster blah blah blah.

Shinners have their faults but you just regurgitate the same nonsense time and time again with little fact to support.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 27, 2017, 12:58:45 PM
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/06/27/despite-the-duptory-deal-today-united-ireland-is-on-the-cards-we-must-have-a-plan

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 27, 2017, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 27, 2017, 12:07:41 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 27, 2017, 09:58:06 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 26, 2017, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2017, 04:03:55 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.

That's right  ::)

Ever wondered why Nationalist led councils in the North are more inclined to have sharing agreements in place with the Mayoral type roles and why Unionist led ones don't?

Yip, its those baddies in Sinn Fein.

Avondhu star, educate yourself and form your opinions on the North somewhere other than the Irish Independent and RTÉ.
I was thinking that so well said.

Who voted against Croke pk being opened to rugby?
Who voted against admitting PSNI
Who was jumping up and down against the dup and now have got their hole opened by Arlene and are doing their best to crawl back into Stormont with Arlene still boss?

Shinners had no vote on Croke Park being opened and IIRC Cork CB also voted against it. Never knew Frank Murphy was a Shinner.
See first part of above. The timeline for the allowing of security force personnel to join the GAA was before the implementation of the Patten report and IIRC was Seany Kelly being the lick ado politician that he finally became.
Alliance, the UUP and the SDLP were the first to jump up and down about Arlene when the RHI scandal broke. In fact the Shinners were being criticised for not jumping soon enough and when Martin did he and the Shinners were singled out, but not Naomi Long, Mike TV or Eastwood, why was that?
Will they go back into Stormont with Arlene at the helm? Who knows, but you'll be ready with your ill informed views either way that (a) if the do go back, they've been outmaneuvered by Arlene, blah blah blah or (b) they don't go back so they're then solely responsible for direct rule from Westminster blah blah blah.

Shinners have their faults but you just regurgitate the same nonsense time and time again with little fact to support.

Now you feel better. Just a little lie down in a dark room for an hour until Nurse comes around
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2017, 02:20:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 27, 2017, 12:58:45 PM
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/06/27/despite-the-duptory-deal-today-united-ireland-is-on-the-cards-we-must-have-a-plan

Everyone suddenly wants their piece of the UI debate. Once something can't be denied you see these leeches jumping on the back of it. While this debate has been going on for decades and has always had an inevitable conclusion, history books will point to brexit and leeches like McWilliams as some sort of starting point. Welcome on board at last David.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 02:32:00 PM
We need the likes of McWilliams to debate the economics of progress as the usual suspects will never achieve anything.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2017, 02:35:49 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 02:32:00 PM
We need the likes of McWilliams to debate the economics of progress as the usual suspects will never achieve anything.

Yes, and I welcome it.

I even welcome those opposed discussing it. there is no chance of Ireland becoming more divided so it can only stay the same or become more united. Debate of all kinds will help this.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 27, 2017, 02:47:24 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on June 27, 2017, 02:20:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 27, 2017, 12:58:45 PM
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/06/27/despite-the-duptory-deal-today-united-ireland-is-on-the-cards-we-must-have-a-plan

Everyone suddenly wants their piece of the UI debate. Once something can't be denied you see these leeches jumping on the back of it. While this debate has been going on for decades and has always had an inevitable conclusion, history books will point to brexit and leeches like McWilliams as some sort of starting point. Welcome on board at last David.

Well I for one welcome these 'leeches' as you describe them jumping on the back of it. However I would like you to point out all these people you state who want their piece of the debate because I don't see too many who have presented an economic vision of how it will look. It has only been with the imposition of Brexit that the debate has been stirred and that also applies to the 2 main nationalist parties in the north. There was barely a credible vision in place before then.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on June 27, 2017, 02:59:11 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 27, 2017, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 27, 2017, 12:07:41 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 27, 2017, 09:58:06 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 26, 2017, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2017, 04:03:55 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on June 25, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 20, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
I think a NI with a nationalist majority would be more likely to be decent simply because nationalists are the locals and don't have the persecution complex that goes with being the settlers.Anywhere that was colonised by outsiders the outsiders have problems.

I dont see any great trend among Shiiners to extend the hand of friendship. Their attitude to the opening of Croke Park to rugby etc, the admission of PSNI to the GAA and their triumphalism following the Assembly elections show they are no better than the other side.

That's right  ::)

Ever wondered why Nationalist led councils in the North are more inclined to have sharing agreements in place with the Mayoral type roles and why Unionist led ones don't?

Yip, its those baddies in Sinn Fein.

Avondhu star, educate yourself and form your opinions on the North somewhere other than the Irish Independent and RTÉ.
I was thinking that so well said.

Who voted against Croke pk being opened to rugby?
Who voted against admitting PSNI
Who was jumping up and down against the dup and now have got their hole opened by Arlene and are doing their best to crawl back into Stormont with Arlene still boss?

Shinners had no vote on Croke Park being opened and IIRC Cork CB also voted against it. Never knew Frank Murphy was a Shinner.
See first part of above. The timeline for the allowing of security force personnel to join the GAA was before the implementation of the Patten report and IIRC was Seany Kelly being the lick ado politician that he finally became.
Alliance, the UUP and the SDLP were the first to jump up and down about Arlene when the RHI scandal broke. In fact the Shinners were being criticised for not jumping soon enough and when Martin did he and the Shinners were singled out, but not Naomi Long, Mike TV or Eastwood, why was that?
Will they go back into Stormont with Arlene at the helm? Who knows, but you'll be ready with your ill informed views either way that (a) if the do go back, they've been outmaneuvered by Arlene, blah blah blah or (b) they don't go back so they're then solely responsible for direct rule from Westminster blah blah blah.

Shinners have their faults but you just regurgitate the same nonsense time and time again with little fact to support.

Now you feel better. Just a little lie down in a dark room for an hour until Nurse comes around

Not a bother, give me a shout if you ever need any more information
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on June 27, 2017, 03:28:24 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 27, 2017, 02:47:24 PM

Well I for one welcome these 'leeches' as you describe them jumping on the back of it. However I would like you to point out all these people you state who want their piece of the debate because I don't see too many who have presented an economic vision of how it will look. It has only been with the imposition of Brexit that the debate has been stirred and that also applies to the 2 main nationalist parties in the north. There was barely a credible vision in place before then.   

This is my point. You only see it as a real debate now, post brexit. I've never seen it other than a real debate. McWilliams, Varadkar, The Irish Times, The Irish independent, The Journal.ie, RTE have all been discussing the possibilty since brexit.. And like you I welcome everyone to debate it.

A quick google will find you many pieces on the economics of a United ireland. Most are agenda packed and I'd say unreliable but they are every bit as reliable as the current economic projections facing any western Country or Union of Countries.
They have been ignored for decades by many as the debate has never really been had on a national scale. There is no real economic projection as there are to many coming from different angles. Some left, some right, some pro EU some Anti EU, some nationalist, some unionist etc. Economic projection aren't worth the paper they are written on much like any political manifesto and calls for them are only diversions. Planning, streamlining and integrating are the important factors as that is were the cost is. Other than that it's not as if the two states are that different. For every one difference there are a 1000 things in common.

We all have different views of how this might work but we'll get there.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 27, 2017, 05:10:33 PM
Are they going to start a war?
Are they going to all emigrate to ????,
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 27, 2017, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?

What about the non-nationalists who believe they are nationalist in aspiration or culturally but do not want the upheaval and seismic change to their existence that a UI would mean?  They make up a sizeable number.  They are happy enough to be in 'a colony for all time'.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 12:26:16 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 27, 2017, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?

What about the non-nationalists who believe they are nationalist in aspiration or culturally but do not want the upheaval and seismic change to their existence that a UI would mean?  They make up a sizeable number.  They are happy enough to be in 'a colony for all time'.

These people should be encouraged to have some minimum amount of self respect, if not for themselves then for their children.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on June 28, 2017, 02:25:18 AM
And who are these people? The upheaval and seismic change of Brexit doesn't count for them?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 28, 2017, 08:44:32 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 27, 2017, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?

What about the non-nationalists who believe they are nationalist in aspiration or culturally but do not want the upheaval and seismic change to their existence that a UI would mean?  They make up a sizeable number.  They are happy enough to be in 'a colony for all time'.

Seismic change?? In reality not a lot will change or certainly no more than Brexit but we all seem to be happy enough ploughing ahead with that cluster f**k
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 28, 2017, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 27, 2017, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?

What about the non-nationalists who believe they are nationalist in aspiration or culturally but do not want the upheaval and seismic change to their existence that a UI would mean?  They make up a sizeable number.  They are happy enough to be in 'a colony for all time'.

A non-nationalist who believes they are nationalist in aspiration. Would that not be a nationalist then?

And if these 'non-nationalists who are nationalist in aspiration' are happy enough to be in a colony for all time then surely they aren't a nationalist anyway, they would be a unionist. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 05:22:46 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 28, 2017, 11:05:35 AM
And if these 'non-nationalists who are nationalist in aspiration' are happy enough to be in a colony for all time then surely they aren't a nationalist anyway, they would be a unionist.

A nationalist who isn't realistic is a nationalist in name only, as a person who does not wish to advance things.

There should be a few smart taigs to come up with a plan
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/revealed-47-of-higher-education-students-are-catholics-and-30-protestants-35874614.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 27, 2017, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?

What about the non-nationalists who believe they are nationalist in aspiration or culturally but do not want the upheaval and seismic change to their existence that a UI would mean?  They make up a sizeable number.  They are happy enough to be in 'a colony for all time'.

Well, to be fair. This could include many innocent, peaceful people who have come through 30 odd years of the Troubles, and experienced murder, interrogation, violence, sectarianism, injury, fear, depression, discrimination etc etc. And now all they want is to live in peace, and see them and their families live in peace. If that's in a British statelet, so be it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 27, 2017, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?

What about the non-nationalists who believe they are nationalist in aspiration or culturally but do not want the upheaval and seismic change to their existence that a UI would mean?  They make up a sizeable number.  They are happy enough to be in 'a colony for all time'.

Well, to be fair. This could include many innocent, peaceful people who have come through 30 odd years of the Troubles, and experienced murder, interrogation, violence, sectarianism, injury, fear, depression, discrimination etc etc. And now all they want is to live in peace, and see them and their families live in peace. If that's in a British statelet, so be it.

That's fine, but how do you then get rid of the discrimination and the sectarianism?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 07:31:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 27, 2017, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?

What about the non-nationalists who believe they are nationalist in aspiration or culturally but do not want the upheaval and seismic change to their existence that a UI would mean?  They make up a sizeable number.  They are happy enough to be in 'a colony for all time'.

Well, to be fair. This could include many innocent, peaceful people who have come through 30 odd years of the Troubles, and experienced murder, interrogation, violence, sectarianism, injury, fear, depression, discrimination etc etc. And now all they want is to live in peace, and see them and their families live in peace. If that's in a British statelet, so be it.

That's fine, but how do you then get rid of the discrimination and the sectarianism?

You don't. Not totally. But at least there's no British army, UDR, RUC in your face everyday. PSNI are still scum, but they won't get away with a lot of the shite they did decades ago. Nor does the relatively peaceful climate allow them to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 28, 2017, 07:35:49 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 27, 2017, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2017, 04:25:09 PM
The economics of a United ireland are important, but really will not be the deciding factor. Even allowing for the demographics and a section of unionists being soft on the Union, the question is what do we do with the guys who believe that sticking flags on lamposts and marching down catholic streets is culture? They will never accept a UI.

Economics are needed to get the sensible people on board.
What is the alternative, that a nationalist majority accept being a colony for all time because of a few head cases?

What about the non-nationalists who believe they are nationalist in aspiration or culturally but do not want the upheaval and seismic change to their existence that a UI would mean?  They make up a sizeable number.  They are happy enough to be in 'a colony for all time'.

Well, to be fair. This could include many innocent, peaceful people who have come through 30 odd years of the Troubles, and experienced murder, interrogation, violence, sectarianism, injury, fear, depression, discrimination etc etc. And now all they want is to live in peace, and see them and their families live in peace. If that's in a British statelet, so be it.

That's entirely their perogative and I totally accept that there are people who may have been victims of the trouble's or suffered from some of the issues that you have raised. It's entirely rational that they may retain some bitterness which will perhaps take another generation to subside as the worst of the troubles become a distant memory and the political decision makers no longer have any links to the armed conflict. Whether catholic or protestant though, anyone wishing to retain the status quo of retaining the 6 counties within the UK, is by definition a Unionist.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 07:43:42 PM
Wishing the uk to retain the 6 counties, yes that's a unionist. But if someone doesn't give a f**k either way, is that a unionist?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 08:00:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 07:43:42 PM
Wishing the uk to retain the 6 counties, yes that's a unionist. But if someone doesn't give a f**k either way, is that a unionist?

In some ways that is worse, unionists are generally unionists because they were brought up that way, dysfunction passed on from generation to generation. Mé féiners don't have that excuse.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 28, 2017, 11:07:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 08:00:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 07:43:42 PM
Wishing the uk to retain the 6 counties, yes that's a unionist. But if someone doesn't give a f**k either way, is that a unionist?

In some ways that is worse, unionists are generally unionists because they were brought up that way, dysfunction passed on from generation to generation. Mé féiners don't have that excuse.

It is only dysfunction in your opinion and no more dysfunctional than those who would plunge the country into years of further violence by forcing through a UI on the basis 50% + 1 or those on both sides who continued violence since the initial power sharing agreement at Sunningdale (mostly violence for the sake of violence).

Probably better to recognise that there are cultural nationalist who are pro-union with GB rather than expressing them as unionists given the connotation of such terminology.  The great fear for SF is that any stability that working through Stormont would bring will create more cultural nationalists who are pro union and even a growing number of SF republicans who are at best agnostic on the union with GB and at worst (for SF) pro union.  On the other hand, failure to work Stormont will result in direct rule, which for the foreseeable future with the DUP in charge of the Tories, will be as benign as the assembly in terms of the economy and softening of austerity that is gripping the UK.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on June 28, 2017, 11:17:25 PM
Cultural Nationlist Unionists :D :D......

Im not accusing anyone ...tho I think its fair to say Quislings would be more accurate a term
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 11:25:34 PM
If you are wish the union to continue when there is a means to end it then you are Unionist. What else are you?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 28, 2017, 11:27:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 28, 2017, 11:17:25 PM
Cultural Nationlist Unionists :D :D......

Im not accusing anyone ...tho I think its fair to say Quislings would be more accurate a term

That's the type of sneering that does not create a warm UI house for a significant number of the NI population who do not vote for the Unionist political parties and consider themselves to be Irish. Probably less acceptable when it comes from someone who does not live in this part of the world if I am correct in reading your posts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on June 29, 2017, 05:00:57 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 28, 2017, 11:27:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 28, 2017, 11:17:25 PM
Cultural Nationlist Unionists :D :D......

Im not accusing anyone ...tho I think its fair to say Quislings would be more accurate a term

That's the type of sneering that does not create a warm UI house for a significant number of the NI population who do not vote for the Unionist political parties and consider themselves to be Irish. Probably less acceptable when it comes from someone who does not live in this part of the world if I am correct in reading your posts.

;D ;D Ah Bless your a sensitive soul TYP. What has my location got to do with my comments and how you see them? Anyway how do you know Im not a bot?

So lets thrash this out..... You consider yourself Nationalist but not a Unionist?

The very definition of a Nationalist in NI is someone who wants a single sovereign country reigning over the entire island, primarily from an administration based in Dublin. You've explicitly said that you dont want that so....you cant be one, cultural (whatever that means) or otherwise.

The definition of a Unionist in NI is someone who wants the 6 counties and indeed the other countries on the island of Britian to remain under the sovereignty of the UK. Which you've said is your preference.... so I think that defines you as a Unionist within the common understanding in NI.

So which are you? If your a Nationalist I could only presume your a British Nationalist, now couple that with not being a Unionist I could only presume that you wish the UK to be ruled as one country with the countries within and their regional administrations within dissolved.

It looks like your trying to say is there is this group of people that I associate with and do the same thing a but I'm actually against the thing that binds us all together because your worried about a bunch of thugs?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on June 29, 2017, 08:17:32 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 29, 2017, 05:00:57 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 28, 2017, 11:27:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 28, 2017, 11:17:25 PM
Cultural Nationlist Unionists :D :D......

Im not accusing anyone ...tho I think its fair to say Quislings would be more accurate a term

That's the type of sneering that does not create a warm UI house for a significant number of the NI population who do not vote for the Unionist political parties and consider themselves to be Irish. Probably less acceptable when it comes from someone who does not live in this part of the world if I am correct in reading your posts.

;D ;D Ah Bless your a sensitive soul TYP. What has my location got to do with my comments and how you see them? Anyway how do you know Im not a bot?

So lets thrash this out..... You consider yourself Nationalist but not a Unionist?

The very definition of a Nationalist in NI is someone who wants a single sovereign country reigning over the entire island, primarily from an administration based in Dublin. You've explicitly said that you dont want that so....you cant be one, cultural (whatever that means) or otherwise.

The definition of a Unionist in NI is someone who wants the 6 counties and indeed the other countries on the island of Britian to remain under the sovereignty of the UK. Which you've said is your preference.... so I think that defines you as a Unionist within the common understanding in NI.

So which are you? If your a Nationalist I could only presume your a British Nationalist, now couple that with not being a Unionist I could only presume that you wish the UK to be ruled as one country with the countries within and their regional administrations within dissolved.

It looks like your trying to say is there is this group of people that I associate with and do the same thing a but I'm actually against the thing that binds us all together because your worried about a bunch of thugs?

More verbal diarrhoea.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 29, 2017, 09:09:20 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 29, 2017, 05:00:57 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 28, 2017, 11:27:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 28, 2017, 11:17:25 PM
Cultural Nationlist Unionists :D :D......

Im not accusing anyone ...tho I think its fair to say Quislings would be more accurate a term

That's the type of sneering that does not create a warm UI house for a significant number of the NI population who do not vote for the Unionist political parties and consider themselves to be Irish. Probably less acceptable when it comes from someone who does not live in this part of the world if I am correct in reading your posts.

;D ;D Ah Bless your a sensitive soul TYP. What has my location got to do with my comments and how you see them? Anyway how do you know Im not a bot?

So lets thrash this out..... You consider yourself Nationalist but not a Unionist?

The very definition of a Nationalist in NI is someone who wants a single sovereign country reigning over the entire island, primarily from an administration based in Dublin. You've explicitly said that you dont want that so....you cant be one, cultural (whatever that means) or otherwise.

The definition of a Unionist in NI is someone who wants the 6 counties and indeed the other countries on the island of Britian to remain under the sovereignty of the UK. Which you've said is your preference.... so I think that defines you as a Unionist within the common understanding in NI.

So which are you? If your a Nationalist I could only presume your a British Nationalist, now couple that with not being a Unionist I could only presume that you wish the UK to be ruled as one country with the countries within and their regional administrations within dissolved.

It looks like your trying to say is there is this group of people that I associate with and do the same thing a but I'm actually against the thing that binds us all together because your worried about a bunch of thugs?

Personally speaking I don't really understand this mentality either but the reality is that there are catholic soft unionists such as you describe and these are the people who are going to be the deciding factor when it comes to the constitutional issue and a border poll.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 29, 2017, 09:13:56 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 28, 2017, 11:07:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 08:00:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 07:43:42 PM
Wishing the uk to retain the 6 counties, yes that's a unionist. But if someone doesn't give a f**k either way, is that a unionist?

In some ways that is worse, unionists are generally unionists because they were brought up that way, dysfunction passed on from generation to generation. Mé féiners don't have that excuse.

It is only dysfunction in your opinion and no more dysfunctional than those who would plunge the country into years of further violence by forcing through a UI on the basis 50% + 1 or those on both sides who continued violence since the initial power sharing agreement at Sunningdale (mostly violence for the sake of violence).

Probably better to recognise that there are cultural nationalist who are pro-union with GB rather than expressing them as unionists given the connotation of such terminology.  The great fear for SF is that any stability that working through Stormont would bring will create more cultural nationalists who are pro union and even a growing number of SF republicans who are at best agnostic on the union with GB and at worst (for SF) pro union.  On the other hand, failure to work Stormont will result in direct rule, which for the foreseeable future with the DUP in charge of the Tories, will be as benign as the assembly in terms of the economy and softening of austerity that is gripping the UK.

So let me get this straight, you believe that should a border poll be won that it requires more than 51%? Should we now start rewriting the agreement to increase the % needed, that's just ridiculous. Should Brexit have taken 60% to win it and not a simple majority. Just because you might not get the result that you want at some point in the future you can't start rewriting the rules. I'm afraid that's democracy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 29, 2017, 09:16:28 AM
Nationalists even when the 32 Counties were under British Rule were in general accepting of their lot for a long time, the Brits changed that with their reaction to 1916 and the introductions of the Tans etc... So we have a similar situation in the remaining 6. However Unionist behaviour at a political level is changing that mindset hence the rise of SF. There is still a job to be done to reassure those neutral on a UI and convince them. If Unionists really wanted to secure the Union they would accept us as equals, accept Irish language, sport and culture as equal and have Irish flags and symbols given official status. But they are so entrenched in the notion that any move to equality no matter how small is some how a loss to their community that they utterly refuse to budge. It also amazes me how most Unionist commentators, surprisingly also including the normally astute and balanced Newto Emerson and Sam McBride do not understand that nationalists as a whole do not care one jot about Westminster or Stormont (with the exception of the shrinking SDLP fast becoming Uncle Toms).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 29, 2017, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 29, 2017, 09:13:56 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 28, 2017, 11:07:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 28, 2017, 08:00:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 28, 2017, 07:43:42 PM
Wishing the uk to retain the 6 counties, yes that's a unionist. But if someone doesn't give a f**k either way, is that a unionist?

In some ways that is worse, unionists are generally unionists because they were brought up that way, dysfunction passed on from generation to generation. Mé féiners don't have that excuse.

It is only dysfunction in your opinion and no more dysfunctional than those who would plunge the country into years of further violence by forcing through a UI on the basis 50% + 1 or those on both sides who continued violence since the initial power sharing agreement at Sunningdale (mostly violence for the sake of violence).

Probably better to recognise that there are cultural nationalist who are pro-union with GB rather than expressing them as unionists given the connotation of such terminology.  The great fear for SF is that any stability that working through Stormont would bring will create more cultural nationalists who are pro union and even a growing number of SF republicans who are at best agnostic on the union with GB and at worst (for SF) pro union.  On the other hand, failure to work Stormont will result in direct rule, which for the foreseeable future with the DUP in charge of the Tories, will be as benign as the assembly in terms of the economy and softening of austerity that is gripping the UK.

So let me get this straight, you believe that should a border poll be won that it requires more than 51%? Should we now start rewriting the agreement to increase the % needed, that's just ridiculous. Should Brexit have taken 60% to win it and not a simple majority. Just because you might not get the result that you want at some point in the future you can't start rewriting the rules. I'm afraid that's democracy.

The one sure thing THAT WILL cause violence is if suddenly 50% +1 isnt deemed enough for unity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on June 29, 2017, 12:18:12 PM
There's no forcing to be done.  The principle of consent, the 50% +1, is the absolute cornerstone of the GFA.  This sort of nonsense talk will only justify any unionist violence in the event of nationalists ever winning a UI vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 02 on June 29, 2017, 02:11:49 PM
The brits can't wait to get rid of yous, great work by the May/DUP alliance!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sandino on June 29, 2017, 04:51:57 PM
The break down of the Stormont talks is not even mentioned on the main BBC website. That's how they see us.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 29, 2017, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: Sandino on June 29, 2017, 04:51:57 PM
The break down of the Stormont talks is not even mentioned on the main BBC website. That's how they see us.

The North, to the average Brit, might as well be Outer Mongolia. They don't give a shit about it. Which is why this border poll should be held in Britain. I'd imagine 90%+ will vote to get shot (pardon the pun) of it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: WT4E on June 29, 2017, 05:10:56 PM
Are we now in the unusual opposite position:

DUP want government devolved to the wee 6 so they can spend their windfall on Orange Halls and Bake Sales

whereas

Sinn Fein want return to Direct Rule to undermine DUP so that people see them for the homophobic sectarian cretans that they are!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on June 29, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 29, 2017, 09:16:28 AM
Nationalists even when the 32 Counties were under British Rule were in general accepting of their lot for a long time, the Brits changed that with their reaction to 1916 and the introductions of the Tans etc... So we have a similar situation in the remaining 6. However Unionist behaviour at a political level is changing that mindset hence the rise of SF. There is still a job to be done to reassure those neutral on a UI and convince them. If Unionists really wanted to secure the Union they would accept us as equals, accept Irish language, sport and culture as equal and have Irish flags and symbols given official status. But they are so entrenched in the notion that any move to equality no matter how small is some how a loss to their community that they utterly refuse to budge. It also amazes me how most Unionist commentators, surprisingly also including the normally astute and balanced Newto Emerson and Sam McBride do not understand that nationalists as a whole do not care one jot about Westminster or Stormont (with the exception of the shrinking SDLP fast becoming Uncle Toms).

Very true. I would be all for disengaging completely from Stormont (flatten it and turn it into a park) and Westminster. By all means stand in elections, but abstain as a protest against ongoing British interference in Ireland and let the world know the truth about this complete mockery of a failed statelet
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on June 29, 2017, 07:31:10 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 29, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 29, 2017, 09:16:28 AM
Nationalists even when the 32 Counties were under British Rule were in general accepting of their lot for a long time, the Brits changed that with their reaction to 1916 and the introductions of the Tans etc... So we have a similar situation in the remaining 6. However Unionist behaviour at a political level is changing that mindset hence the rise of SF. There is still a job to be done to reassure those neutral on a UI and convince them. If Unionists really wanted to secure the Union they would accept us as equals, accept Irish language, sport and culture as equal and have Irish flags and symbols given official status. But they are so entrenched in the notion that any move to equality no matter how small is some how a loss to their community that they utterly refuse to budge. It also amazes me how most Unionist commentators, surprisingly also including the normally astute and balanced Newto Emerson and Sam McBride do not understand that nationalists as a whole do not care one jot about Westminster or Stormont (with the exception of the shrinking SDLP fast becoming Uncle Toms).

Very true. I would be all for disengaging completely from Stormont (flatten it and turn it into a park) and Westminster. By all means stand in elections, but abstain as a protest against ongoing British interference in Ireland and let the world know the truth about this complete mockery of a failed statelet

Completely agree.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on June 29, 2017, 08:15:45 PM
It's obvious for anyone with non-blinkered unionist eyes that the north is a failed statelet, partition for almost 100 years has been a disaster for the 6 counties, mostly dependent on hand outs and public sector jobs to give the impression that it's a normal society, with only a fraction of private industry in the north compared to the south.  Belfast, once the industrial powerhouse of Ireland, is a shadow of its former self.

I think the DUP have really shot themselves in the foot for short term gain ... they are hung up on the Brexit vote being a UK wide vote and we MUST respect democracy ... so why not put another referendum to a UK wide vote, Do you wish NI to remain part of the UK?  Yes or No.  I think the DUP would be shocked by the result of that UK wide poll, and of course, we must respect the democratic result except when it suits them.

Sinn Fein have no interest in making Stormont work, and why should they, it's a failed entity and needs to he shown to the world for what it is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on June 29, 2017, 08:29:49 PM
Your pretty delusion lads if you a UK wide vote would  result be pro UI. You overestimate the English, just look at Brexit FFS. The reason they voted for it wasnt because they felt like the EU took too much money for them, it was because they believe that they should reestablish their empire which the EU is preventing them from doing.
Or indyref & the SNP, the Scots are a bunch of scrougers apparently but when they wanted to go it alone Sturgeon Salmon etc are evil personified.

There is no way the average English person would be willing to give up any more of their empire if they can help it, no matter how much it costs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Minder on June 29, 2017, 08:31:13 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on June 29, 2017, 08:15:45 PM
It's obvious for anyone with non-blinkered unionist eyes that the north is a failed statelet, partition for almost 100 years has been a disaster for the 6 counties, mostly dependent on hand outs and public sector jobs to give the impression that it's a normal society, with only a fraction of private industry in the north compared to the south.  Belfast, once the industrial powerhouse of Ireland, is a shadow of its former self.

I think the DUP have really shot themselves in the foot for short term gain ... they are hung up on the Brexit vote being a UK wide vote and we MUST respect democracy ... so why not put another referendum to a UK wide vote, Do you wish NI to remain part of the UK?  Yes or No.  I think the DUP would be shocked by the result of that UK wide poll, and of course, we must respect the democratic result accept when it suits them.

Sinn Fein have no interest in making Stormont work, and why should they, it's a failed entity and needs to he shown to the world for what it is.

Does anyone think the world cares?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 29, 2017, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 29, 2017, 08:29:49 PM
Your pretty delusion lads if you a UK wide vote would  result be pro UI. You overestimate the English, just look at Brexit FFS. The reason they voted for it wasnt because they felt like the EU took too much money for them, it was because they believe that they should reestablish their empire which the EU is preventing them from doing.
Or indyref & the SNP, the Scots are a bunch of scrougers apparently but when they wanted to go it alone Sturgeon Salmon etc are evil personified.

There is no way the average English person would be willing to give up any more of their empire if they can help it, no matter how much it costs.

There were lots of reasons why people voted for Brexit. They didn't all vote for it for the same one reason.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 29, 2017, 11:00:15 PM
Brexit was obviously sold to Imperial types, who resented that partnership in the EU where Britian is not boss.  But it took a false narrative about the economy and £350m for the NHS to get it over the line. Hard to see how you can claim that keeping NI is economically beneficial to England.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 29, 2017, 11:14:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 29, 2017, 11:00:15 PM
Brexit was obviously sold to Imperial types, who resented that partnership in the EU where Britian is not boss.  But it took a false narrative about the economy and £350m for the NHS to get it over the line. Hard to see how you can claim that keeping NI is economically beneficial to England.

Brexit was sold with some lies. But are those lies any worse than the bullshit that is spouted by toffs in general election campaigns?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 29, 2017, 11:41:26 PM
General election campaigns have lies, to be sure. You can do something about it at the next election though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 30, 2017, 08:31:21 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 29, 2017, 08:29:49 PM
Your pretty delusion lads if you a UK wide vote would  result be pro UI. You overestimate the English, just look at Brexit FFS. The reason they voted for it wasnt because they felt like the EU took too much money for them, it was because they believe that they should reestablish their empire which the EU is preventing them from doing.
Or indyref & the SNP, the Scots are a bunch of scrougers apparently but when they wanted to go it alone Sturgeon Salmon etc are evil personified.

There is no way the average English person would be willing to give up any more of their empire if they can help it, no matter how much it costs.

Historically polls in GB have heavilly backed Irish unity its only in recent years that people back Northern Ireland to stay in UK because things have been quiet for so long. Any sort of flare ups in the future and they will want shot of us again ASAP

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/British_Social_Attitudes_Northern_Ireland.png/950px-British_Social_Attitudes_Northern_Ireland.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 30, 2017, 09:01:14 AM
Brexit in the UK was won primarily on the demonising of foreign nationals. Ironically many of those who voted leave were of black or asian origin, more British than the Brits themselves.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on June 30, 2017, 10:06:16 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 30, 2017, 09:01:14 AM
Brexit in the UK was won primarily on the demonising of foreign nationals. Ironically many of those who voted leave were of black or asian origin, more British than the Brits themselves.

Again, there were a range of issues why people voted for Brexit. And there was a range of issues why I voted for Brexit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 30, 2017, 10:55:59 AM
Such as.......?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 30, 2017, 09:59:56 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 30, 2017, 10:55:59 AM
Such as.......?
Pray Tell
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on June 30, 2017, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 30, 2017, 09:01:14 AM
Brexit in the UK was won primarily on the demonising of foreign nationals. Ironically many of those who voted leave were of black or asian origin, more British than the Brits themselves.

Actually, the whole immigration issue was against those of east European origin and those of african and asian heritage are just as xenophobic as the standard english man or woman when it comes to the eastern Europeans.

Meanwhile the greatest number of immigrants to UK was from outside the EU and continues to be.  UK seems to have no control on the immigrants from non-EU countries.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 01, 2017, 12:17:16 AM
The large scale East European immigration was a phase, already net immigration from Poland etc is negligible and immigration from Bulgaria and Romania will follow the same pattern, if only because of the demographics in these places. The whole Brexit thing is based in something that wouldn't last anyhow. Of course there is an almost unlimited number of people outside the EU.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on July 01, 2017, 06:01:05 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 29, 2017, 11:00:15 PM
Brexit was obviously sold to Imperial types, who resented that partnership in the EU where Britian is not boss.  But it took a false narrative about the economy and £350m for the NHS to get it over the line. Hard to see how you can claim that keeping NI is economically beneficial to England.
The NHS thing was a lie linked to an emotional hook.Sovereignty alone might only have got 20%. There was a big "f**k it" protest vote with no link to any policy programme. Brexit is really messy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on July 01, 2017, 09:08:43 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on June 30, 2017, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 30, 2017, 09:01:14 AM
Brexit in the UK was won primarily on the demonising of foreign nationals. Ironically many of those who voted leave were of black or asian origin, more British than the Brits themselves.

Actually, the whole immigration issue was against those of east European origin and those of african and asian heritage are just as xenophobic as the standard english man or woman when it comes to the eastern Europeans.

Meanwhile the greatest number of immigrants to UK was from outside the EU and continues to be.  UK seems to have no control on the immigrants from non-EU countries.
Exactly
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on July 01, 2017, 10:11:18 AM
It is amazing when you visit GB how many of the immigrants are from Somalia or are of that heritage.  I can understand sub continent immigrants where there is an established community from the 50s, 60s and 70s but how did so many from Somali enter GB.  Overall, there appears to be no real control over non EU immigration given the numbers involved and the ghettoisation of large parts of London and the other major cities in the midlands and the north.  Obviously, some will have used an EU route by obtaining credentials on the European mainland but most will have come through other methods accessible to Border control.  This was an issue missed or avoided by the Yes campaign during the referendum for whatever reason, probably to avoid claims of the race card. In NI, the Portuguese migrants who have become over 10% of the population of Dungannon are of African heritage who have travelled to Portugal their former colonists and obtained EU passports allowing them to travel wherever they want.

The only issue for the targeting of EU economic migrants by the average citizen in England and Wales over the much greater numbers of non-EU immigrants building in the ghettoised areas of cities was that the EU migrants travelled specifically for work.  They took jobs many that the English would not do and many of them took more than one job given the low pay available for them.  This made the EU migrant more visible and they did not congregate in their 'own' areas which are apart from the white population as the eastern Europeans generally are more racist than their English counterparts if that is not too great an insult on hard working people.  They lived among the poorest in society but stood out as they had jobs.  This made them very visible and a target.  It was easy for politicians to feed off the resentment towards the EU migrants.  The non-EU migrant have become less visible because of white flight that has abandoned large areas of cities to become solely the preserve on those of asian and african heritage.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 05, 2017, 04:37:10 PM
NI economy to grow 1% this year and 0.9% next year, and that's before any Brexit disruption, which isn't very good when the population is growing by 0.5%. Incredibly, NI is growing more slowly than GB!
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/northern-irelands-economy-to-grow-by-just-09-in-2018-study-finds-35895028.html

With the ROI growing at 4% this year and much the same next year people will begin to notice the gap, while of course the public finance gap is only increased by the DUP deal and NI being behind GB.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on July 05, 2017, 04:56:48 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 05, 2017, 04:37:10 PM
NI economy to grow 1% this year and 0.9% next year, and that's before any Brexit disruption, which isn't very good when the population is growing by 0.5%. Incredibly, NI is growing more slowly than GB!
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/northern-irelands-economy-to-grow-by-just-09-in-2018-study-finds-35895028.html

With the ROI growing at 4% this year and much the same next year people will begin to notice the gap, while of course the public finance gap is only increased by the DUP deal and NI being behind GB.
NI is stagnating. There is no growth driver. For years being part of the UK was advantageous. Not now
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on July 05, 2017, 10:37:10 PM
Last time I looked into it, about half the people moving to the UK were from other EU countries and the other half was from Commonwealth and former empire territories.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 09, 2017, 12:10:27 AM
A slightly different perspective from Россия
https://youtu.be/PK2Wis7cfXg
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: UlsterMan2 on July 09, 2017, 01:34:08 AM
The sad thing is we shouldn't care about brexit or this and that, if we get a chance to free Ireland we need to take it and worry about things later, as Bobby said Ireland unfree shall never be at peace, so free Ireland and take it from there
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on July 09, 2017, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 09, 2017, 12:10:27 AM
A slightly different perspective from Россия
https://youtu.be/PK2Wis7cfXg

That was a pure gem thanks for sharing. You won't find honest commentary like that in the BBC.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on July 09, 2017, 05:05:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on July 05, 2017, 04:56:48 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 05, 2017, 04:37:10 PM
NI economy to grow 1% this year and 0.9% next year, and that's before any Brexit disruption, which isn't very good when the population is growing by 0.5%. Incredibly, NI is growing more slowly than GB!
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/northern-irelands-economy-to-grow-by-just-09-in-2018-study-finds-35895028.html

With the ROI growing at 4% this year and much the same next year people will begin to notice the gap, while of course the public finance gap is only increased by the DUP deal and NI being behind GB.
NI is stagnating. There is no growth driver. For years being part of the UK was advantageous. Not now

Has any party initiated a proper analysis of all possible economic programs that could be developed under a single state ? And I don't mean the magic beans "make the rich pay" policy of the "left and "so called left" also known as Sinn Fein
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on July 09, 2017, 07:48:17 PM
Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on July 09, 2017, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 09, 2017, 12:10:27 AM
A slightly different perspective from Россия
https://youtu.be/PK2Wis7cfXg

That was a pure gem thanks for sharing. You won't find honest commentary like that in the BBC.

You're not meant to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 07:40:46 AM
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/09/11/news/trying-to-convince-unionists-of-the-benefits-of-a-united-ireland-is-insulting--1132706/

For Seafoid and others equally misguided who think economic arguments or any other form of logic will persuade unionists to opt for a United Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 11, 2017, 10:17:29 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 07:40:46 AM
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/09/11/news/trying-to-convince-unionists-of-the-benefits-of-a-united-ireland-is-insulting--1132706/

For Seafoid and others equally misguided who think economic arguments or any other form of logic will persuade unionists to opt for a United Ireland

Not all people are unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 11:08:22 AM
But their consent is required for reunification as per full agreement of SF,SDLP and all southern parties enshrined in GFA.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 11, 2017, 11:24:46 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 11:08:22 AM
But their consent is required for reunification as per full agreement of SF,SDLP and all southern parties enshrined in GFA.

All that is required is a 50%+1 of NI to vote for it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 11, 2017, 11:32:57 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 11, 2017, 11:24:46 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 11:08:22 AM
But their consent is required for reunification as per full agreement of SF,SDLP and all southern parties enshrined in GFA.

All that is required is a 50%+1 of NI to vote for it.
Correct.
Unionists are now around 45%?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 12:20:42 PM
Wont happen anyway with or without Unionist consent.Dublin will see to that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on September 11, 2017, 12:55:20 PM
Quote from: UlsterMan2 on July 09, 2017, 01:34:08 AM
The sad thing is we shouldn't care about brexit or this and that, if we get a chance to free Ireland we need to take it and worry about things later, as Bobby said Ireland unfree shall never be at peace, so free Ireland and take it from there

First bit of sense in this debate. Let's just vote for a united ireland and worry about the rest later. My message to anybody having doubts is this: STOP HAVING DOUBTS.

Anybody wanting to ask questions or wanting answers I ask them the following 2 questions: Can they even think of one occasion when blind faith or lack of accountability has harmed us?

Can they even think of one time when politicians have been given a free hand and let the people down?

End of debate. Debate is completely unnecessary
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 01:21:50 PM
Perfect recipe to start another Civil War
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hereiam on September 11, 2017, 01:57:53 PM
Will be no civil war Tony as the saying goes "we are stronger in numbers"
It would be worth it in the end.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 02:32:52 PM
So one million unionists will quietly acquiesce? Have you seen their reaction when their flag is taken down from Belfast City Hall?

This is all irrelevant anyway.The Dublin Government would stop a United Ireland if there was unanimous support for it in the North.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on September 11, 2017, 02:37:39 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2017, 02:32:52 PM
So one million unionists will quietly acquiesce? Have you seen their reaction when their flag is taken down from Belfast City Hall?

This is all irrelevant anyway.The Dublin Government would stop a United Ireland if there was unanimous support for it in the North.

More baseless claptrap.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 11, 2017, 02:45:20 PM
43%  I think Unionist vote in the 2 recent elections.
43% of 1.8 million = 750k or thereabouts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on September 11, 2017, 03:21:45 PM
Personally think the border poll will be irrelevant, except as the threat of which finally forces unionists to wake up, smell the coffee and start making deals for a united ireland. 1m is a fairly strong power base for some party, there'd be guarantees of representation etc, perhaps closer ties with UK, and a lot of guaranteed investment into loyalist areas. New flag, anthem, essentially new country.

It will come, but not how we imagine it. Ironically those who will feel left behind will be northern nationalists. What we actually want in political terms is an invasion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on September 11, 2017, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on September 11, 2017, 03:21:45 PM
Personally think the border poll will be irrelevant, except as the threat of which finally forces unionists to wake up, smell the coffee and start making deals for a united ireland. 1m is a fairly strong power base for some party, there'd be guarantees of representation etc, perhaps closer ties with UK, and a lot of guaranteed investment into loyalist areas. New flag, anthem, essentially new country.

It will come, but not how we imagine it. Ironically those who will feel left behind will be northern nationalists. What we actually want in political terms is an invasion.

Again.

Dublin will bend over backwards, as they've always done, to placate unionists. I actually think unionists will be a lot better off in an UI than they think. But an UI will never happen.

Since the GFA, the North has actually become more polarised than it ever was.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 06:16:34 AM
The problem is that the North remains obsessed by identity politics,and no means of logic,economic benefit etc will persuade anyone to relinquish their "identity". Economically Northern Catholics were always better off under UK rule,for example,but that never dampened their desire to end it.Similarly econmic benefit will not persuade unionists to abandon their British identity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on September 12, 2017, 09:02:01 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 11, 2017, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on September 11, 2017, 03:21:45 PM
Personally think the border poll will be irrelevant, except as the threat of which finally forces unionists to wake up, smell the coffee and start making deals for a united ireland. 1m is a fairly strong power base for some party, there'd be guarantees of representation etc, perhaps closer ties with UK, and a lot of guaranteed investment into loyalist areas. New flag, anthem, essentially new country.

It will come, but not how we imagine it. Ironically those who will feel left behind will be northern nationalists. What we actually want in political terms is an invasion.

Again.

Dublin will bend over backwards, as they've always done, to placate unionists. I actually think unionists will be a lot better off in an UI than they think. But an UI will never happen.

Since the GFA, the North has actually become more polarised than it ever was.
:o Come on now that is way off the mark it is nearly funny.  Some people have short memories.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2017, 04:27:43 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 06:16:34 AM
The problem is that the North remains obsessed by identity politics,and no means of logic,economic benefit etc will persuade anyone to relinquish their "identity". Economically Northern Catholics were always better off under UK rule,for example,but that never dampened their desire to end it.Similarly econmic benefit will not persuade unionists to abandon their British identity.

Surely you're talking about the post Stormont parliament direct rule era here, not the Stormont "Catholics need not apply" era.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2017, 04:30:59 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on September 12, 2017, 09:02:01 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 11, 2017, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on September 11, 2017, 03:21:45 PM
Personally think the border poll will be irrelevant, except as the threat of which finally forces unionists to wake up, smell the coffee and start making deals for a united ireland. 1m is a fairly strong power base for some party, there'd be guarantees of representation etc, perhaps closer ties with UK, and a lot of guaranteed investment into loyalist areas. New flag, anthem, essentially new country.

It will come, but not how we imagine it. Ironically those who will feel left behind will be northern nationalists. What we actually want in political terms is an invasion.

Again.

Dublin will bend over backwards, as they've always done, to placate unionists. I actually think unionists will be a lot better off in an UI than they think. But an UI will never happen.

Since the GFA, the North has actually become more polarised than it ever was.
:o Come on now that is way off the mark it is nearly funny.  Some people have short memories.

Maybe not more polarised than it was when Bombay Street was being burned out, but still I'm not seeing much sign of any integration or reconciliation going on in the north. New housing developments are going up left and right and they're as segregated as ever. There's no sign of ending the segregation of the education system either. All you get from church apologists is the old soundbite about catholic schools "teaching respect for different faiths" as if a lesson in a book is an adequate substitute for forming actual friendships with protestants.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on September 12, 2017, 04:58:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on September 12, 2017, 09:02:01 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 11, 2017, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on September 11, 2017, 03:21:45 PM
Personally think the border poll will be irrelevant, except as the threat of which finally forces unionists to wake up, smell the coffee and start making deals for a united ireland. 1m is a fairly strong power base for some party, there'd be guarantees of representation etc, perhaps closer ties with UK, and a lot of guaranteed investment into loyalist areas. New flag, anthem, essentially new country.

It will come, but not how we imagine it. Ironically those who will feel left behind will be northern nationalists. What we actually want in political terms is an invasion.

Again.

Dublin will bend over backwards, as they've always done, to placate unionists. I actually think unionists will be a lot better off in an UI than they think. But an UI will never happen.

Since the GFA, the North has actually become more polarised than it ever was.
:o Come on now that is way off the mark it is nearly funny.  Some people have short memories.

The GFA reinforced British and Irish identities, via census forms, passports, etc. This Ulster Scots has helped reinforced to Protestants that they are in no way Irish, and instead of grants for cross community initiatives, it's going to Ulster Scots things, which is 100% Protestant.

The Irish passport/identity has also driven a lot more Nationalists in not recognising they are residents in NI, or even recognising the North. Nationalist Political parties wanting recognition of an Irish/Nationalist issue, leads to Unionists wanting recognition for their identity, and that filters down to the general population, leading to more and more segregation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 05:13:45 PM
In the North everyone (arguably moreso working class Catholics such as myself) benefitted from Labour's opening up of the Education system which made grammar school places available freely on merit.There was also a free NHS introduced at the same time,and better public services/welfare etc than were available in the South.

Discrimination was rife of course but even in ultra loyalist Portadown,my late mother and father were never out of work (my dad was the only catholic in the Company he worked for) and they always maintained that there was work for everyone who really wanted it.

So yes,I woukd say that economically the Union with the UK was better than any reunification scenario.

There always has been integration in the leafy suburbs among the North's middle classes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2017, 06:25:16 PM
Just so we're clear, are you adopting the discrimination denial that the unionists come out with? Are you saying there was no inequality or discrimination between partition and the Troubles? If so then why do you think the Troubles started?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 12, 2017, 06:55:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 05:13:45 PM
So yes,I woukd say that economically the Union with the UK was better than any reunification scenario.

"was" being the appropriate tense.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 07:17:35 PM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination but this affected the working classes.I can only put it into perspective by my own familial experience in loyalist Portadown.Pre troubles for example I spent two years of my early life in the 60s in the now ultra loyalist estate of Kilicomaine.Our neighbours were overwhelmingly protestant.No problems.My parents were never out of work,I attended Catholic Schools funded by Stormont etc
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2017, 07:31:13 PM
But you said that the union was good for nationalists in general, now you're saying that this absence of discrimination was only your personal experience. Are you rolling back on your claim to say that the union was good for your family but not necessarily other catholics?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 08:01:29 PM
Im saying that if simple economic benefits made people abandon their identity,Northern nationalists would have accepted partition.I was born pre troubles.If I'd been born down south my parents would have been forced to emigrate to find work.I'm also glad that I didnt have to swallow the South's austerity measures this last ten years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 12, 2017, 08:07:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 08:01:29 PM
Im saying that if simple economic benefits made people abandon their identity,Northern nationalists would have accepted partition.I was born pre troubles.If I'd been born down south my parents would have been forced to emigrate to find work.I'm also glad that I didnt have to swallow the South's austerity measures this last ten years.

If your parents had been forced to emigrate then you might now have the British identity you prefer, except you would now be looking for an Irish passport after Brexit. As for the South's austerity measures, lots of people had pay cuts and still earned more than they would in the 6 counties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 12, 2017, 08:31:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 08:01:29 PM
Im saying that if simple economic benefits made people abandon their identity,Northern nationalists would have accepted partition.I was born pre troubles.If I'd been born down south my parents would have been forced to emigrate to find work.I'm also glad that I didnt have to swallow the South's austerity measures this last ten years.
Wait until Brexit gets going Tony. Brexit will.really hurt
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 12, 2017, 08:32:50 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 08:01:29 PM
Im saying that if simple economic benefits made people abandon their identity,Northern nationalists would have accepted partition.I was born pre troubles.If I'd been born down south my parents would have been forced to emigrate to find work.I'm also glad that I didnt have to swallow the South's austerity measures this last ten years.
Why did clan ui Fhearain stop speaking the Gaeilge Tony? Nothing to do with economics?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on September 12, 2017, 08:39:26 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 12, 2017, 08:31:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 08:01:29 PM
Im saying that if simple economic benefits made people abandon their identity,Northern nationalists would have accepted partition.I was born pre troubles.If I'd been born down south my parents would have been forced to emigrate to find work.I'm also glad that I didnt have to swallow the South's austerity measures this last ten years.
Wait until Brexit gets going Tony. Brexit will.really hurt

North or South, Brexit will f**k up the two places. As it will in Britain. The EU will made sure of it. So really it's like Stockholm Syndrome, people will realise it's better economically if they are in the unelected Nazi/Bankers group, even when they know they are a bunch of unelected psychotic gangsters.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 11:15:02 PM
That's the thing.Neither part of Ireland is really independent,and reunification won't make it independent either.I do not believe Brexit will take place by the way,or if it does it will be watered down so much that no one will notice any difference.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on September 13, 2017, 01:27:40 AM
What are you talking about?

Seriously what does that mean? "Neither part of Ireland is independent and reunification won't make it independent either". Was Ireland conquered this evening and it hasn't made the news? Did Leo gift Ireland to Trudeau as a new Canadian Province? the Rockall liberation front stormed the Dail? Maybe 31 years later the sleeper cell from the Clontibret occupation was reactivated and achieved their goals before anyone even realized?

These Trumpian statements rooted in your own blissful ignorance should embarrass even your brass neck every once in a while.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:55:37 AM
Ireland North depends on a large British financial subvention,similarly the South from the EU.Therefore neither part of Ireland is free to legislate of its own volition.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on September 13, 2017, 06:40:03 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 12, 2017, 08:32:50 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2017, 08:01:29 PM
Im saying that if simple economic benefits made people abandon their identity,Northern nationalists would have accepted partition.I was born pre troubles.If I'd been born down south my parents would have been forced to emigrate to find work.I'm also glad that I didnt have to swallow the South's austerity measures this last ten years.
Why did clan ui Fhearain stop speaking the Gaeilge Tony? Nothing to do with economics?
Was it not so that they could fill out the benefit forms in English?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 13, 2017, 10:48:10 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:55:37 AM
Ireland North depends on a large British financial subvention,similarly the South from the EU.Therefore neither part of Ireland is free to legislate of its own volition.
How much does the EU give the 26 Counties?
How much do we pay to the EU?
Last I heard we were a net contributor.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 13, 2017, 11:11:25 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 13, 2017, 10:48:10 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:55:37 AM
Ireland North depends on a large British financial subvention,similarly the South from the EU.Therefore neither part of Ireland is free to legislate of its own volition.
How much does the EU give the 26 Counties?
How much do we pay to the EU?
Last I heard we were a net contributor.

Don't be bringing facts into the debate!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 13, 2017, 11:21:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 13, 2017, 11:11:25 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 13, 2017, 10:48:10 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:55:37 AM
Ireland North depends on a large British financial subvention,similarly the South from the EU.Therefore neither part of Ireland is free to legislate of its own volition.
How much does the EU give the 26 Counties?
How much do we pay to the EU?
Last I heard we were a net contributor.

Don't be bringing facts into the debate!!

;D :D ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on September 13, 2017, 11:23:15 AM
The problem with NI is that it was always intended as a transitional arrangement when partition was enforced. I love it when Unionists talk about ignoring the majority which of course is exactly what they did in 1920, by violent means. That said any vote for a UI will only be the beginning and it will take years to sort out.I read some where, it may have been Alex Kane that the big problem for Unionism is that unity is an irreversible process, where as for Nationalists the Union is a staging post to Unity, this affects the mindset hence we get the illogical reaction to all things Irish.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 13, 2017, 11:55:47 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 13, 2017, 11:23:15 AM
The problem with NI is that it was always intended as a transitional arrangement when partition was enforced. I love it when Unionists talk about ignoring the majority which of course is exactly what they did in 1920, by violent means. That said any vote for a UI will only be the beginning and it will take years to sort out.I read some where, it may have been Alex Kane that the big problem for Unionism is that unity is an irreversible process, where as for Nationalists the Union is a staging post to Unity, this affects the mindset hence we get the illogical reaction to all things Irish.
NI is like a maths equation with no solution.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 13, 2017, 02:38:19 PM
The plantation was always a stupid idea. It will never be rational.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2017, 05:43:03 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:55:37 AM
Ireland North depends on a large British financial subvention,similarly the South from the EU.Therefore neither part of Ireland is free to legislate of its own volition.

False. The free state has been a net contributor for quite some time. The structural funds in the 90s never accounted for more than 5% of GDP, so they weren't the main driving force behind all that growth as unionists like to crow about.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:51:04 PM
So why is it averse to leave the EU? Would seem the logical to do to follow Britain out given the close trading links,and to ensure no physical border in Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on September 13, 2017, 05:55:00 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:51:04 PM
So why is it averse to leave the EU? Would seem the logical to do to follow Britain out given the close trading links,and to ensure no physical border in Ireland

Why do we trade internationally? Why do we have international trade agreements?

Why is Ireland a country, why do we have Bunreacht na hÉireann? Surely we'd all be better looking after ourselves- Darwin and all that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 06:10:32 PM
It is still not independent.It has to enact EU laws and relied on a massive EU bailout.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2017, 06:25:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:51:04 PM
So why is it averse to leave the EU? Would seem the logical to do to follow Britain out given the close trading links,and to ensure no physical border in Ireland

Access to the EU is one of the big selling points for multinational companies locating in Ireland. Following the Brits off the exit cliff like lemmings is no way to conduct policy.

56% of Irish exports go to the continent. The top 15 trading partners (2016 figures, exports) are:

United States: US$33.2 billion (25.9% of total Irish exports)
United Kingdom: $16.3 billion (12.7%)
Belgium: $16.3 billion (12.7%)
Germany: $8.4 billion (6.6%)
Switzerland: $6.9 billion (5.4%)
Netherlands: $6.5 billion (5.1%)
France: $5.4 billion (4.2%)
China: $3.3 billion (2.6%)
Spain: $3.2 billion (2.5%)
Japan: $3.1 billion (2.4%)
Italy: $2.6 billion (2.1%)
Australia: $1.6 billion (1.3%)
Israel: $1.6 billion (1.3%)
Poland: $1.5 billion (1.2%)
Mexico: $1.5 billion (1.2%)

Source (http://www.worldstopexports.com/irelands-top-import-partners/)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on September 13, 2017, 06:34:20 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:51:04 PM
So why is it averse to leave the EU? Would seem the logical to do to follow Britain out given the close trading links,and to ensure no physical border in Ireland

Totally agree.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 13, 2017, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:51:04 PM
So why is it averse to leave the EU? Would seem the logical to do to follow Britain out given the close trading links,and to ensure no physical border in Ireland
We want to be an outgoing cosmopolitan part of the great big world and not glued to an insular right wing xenophobic shower of hoors.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on September 13, 2017, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 13, 2017, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 05:51:04 PM
So why is it averse to leave the EU? Would seem the logical to do to follow Britain out given the close trading links,and to ensure no physical border in Ireland
We want to be an outgoing cosmopolitan part of the great big world and not glued to an insular right wing xenophobic shower of hoors.

That's no way to talk about your EU masters.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 13, 2017, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 13, 2017, 06:59:53 PM
That's no way to talk about your EU masters.

The EU are not our masters, it is an organisation in which we are partners.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 13, 2017, 07:44:44 PM
Ahhh Armaghniac you're bringing facts into things ;D
As for the bailout - that was a serious of loans which have to be PAID BACK WITH INTEREST!!!!
Our great "friends" in Westminster loaned us some money as prte of the bailout at 8% interest, reduced to 6% when rates dropped.
With friends like that....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 07:57:28 PM
Bullshit it was EU subventions that built up the infrastructure of the South.There is no sovereignty,all EU laws,no control over immigration etc
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on September 13, 2017, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 07:57:28 PM
Bullshit it was EU subventions that built up the infrastructure of the South.There is no sovereignty,all EU laws,no control over immigration etc

NI is in the EU as well, why is your infrastructure so far behind the south?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 08:33:42 PM
Our infrastructure has been way ahead of the South since our motorways were built in the 1960s
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on September 13, 2017, 08:54:55 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 13, 2017, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 13, 2017, 06:59:53 PM
That's no way to talk about your EU masters.

The EU are not our masters, it is an organisation in which we are partners.

That's what they tell you. In reality, it's an organisation where it's members bend over and take it up the jacksie.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2017, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 07:57:28 PM
Bullshit it was EU subventions that built up the infrastructure of the South.There is no sovereignty,all EU laws,no control over immigration etc

Au contraire:

"The expansion of the EU's structural funds after the Maastricht treaty of 1992 was helpful, but even then transfers never exceeded 5% of Irish GDP, a far smaller proportion than, say, west German transfers to east Germany. The most authoritative studies suggest that EU subsidies may have added around 0.5% a year to growth during the 1990s—useful, but modest in the context of average growth of 6.9%."

Source (http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/special-reports-pdfs/3260992.pdf)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2017, 09:07:42 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 08:33:42 PM
Our infrastructure has been way ahead of the South since our motorways were built in the 1960s

That's nice. Any progress on getting the Banbridge dual carriageway upgraded to a motorway? It's the only stretch of the Belfast-Dublin road that is not motorway and it's in the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 09:12:30 PM
Sure apart from 60mph speed limit as opposed to Motorway,70mph,it is a Motorway for all intents and purposes
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2017, 09:14:44 PM
You can ride a bike or drive a tractor on it and the speed limit is 60mph. It ain't no motorway, boyo.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 09:18:07 PM
Near enough.Not feasible to spend millions and millions to make it a Motorway,too many turn offs to small villages etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on September 14, 2017, 03:57:11 AM
Tony,
at some point you're going to have to cop yourself on. No matter how much you try to make it appear differently your religion and economic approaches toile are very similar. All faith, and no substance...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: punt kick on September 14, 2017, 08:20:48 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2017, 09:07:42 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 08:33:42 PM
Our infrastructure has been way ahead of the South since our motorways were built in the 1960s

That's nice. Any progress on getting the Banbridge dual carriageway upgraded to a motorway? It's the only stretch of the Belfast-Dublin road that is not motorway and it's in the north.

Wtf do you care, sure you abandoned Ireland, stick to the freeways kiddo.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on September 14, 2017, 08:30:42 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 08:33:42 PM
Our infrastructure has been way ahead of the South since our motorways were built in the 1960s
Great motorways built to anywhere but where they were needed and at British Taxpayers expense. You can spew all the old unionist rhetoric you like, but the fact is the Republic warts and all has done a good job of standing on its own two feet compared to the economic basket case that is this sectarian cess pit you call your wee country. Reports in yesterdays press are stating that the limited growth of companies in NI is due to its proximity to the burgeoning ROI economy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fat Angry Motorist on September 14, 2017, 09:45:50 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2017, 08:33:42 PM
Our infrastructure has been way ahead of the South since our motorways were built in the 1960s

WUM
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 10:15:37 AM
I am not claiming the North is better.It requires British money to sustain it,just as the South requires EU money,which funded the great infrastructural improvements.Neither North or South is independent,or has sovereign control,nor would a United Ireland have.That's the point I'm trying to make
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on September 14, 2017, 10:27:50 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 10:15:37 AM
I am not claiming the North is better.It requires British money to sustain it,just as the South requires EU money,which funded the great infrastructural improvements.Neither North or South is independent,or has sovereign control,nor would a United Ireland have.That's the point I'm trying to make

Erm... yeah, this is lies.  As a supposed catholic you shouldn't be telling these.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 10:34:30 AM
So the South doesn't get billions of the EU? I remember Albert Reynolds well over 20 years ago boasting of the £8bn package he'd negotiated with the EU. Up to then the whole of Cavan was notorious for potholes
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 14, 2017, 11:02:59 AM
The sovereign 26 Counties voted to join the EU in 1972 or whenever.
If we ever leave it will be because we voted to leave.
The 6 Cos votes to stay in the EU but won't be let.
Tony still stuck in 1992 when we were a poorer EU Country and got the famous Structural and Infrastructural Funds spread over 9 years.
We are no longer one of the poorer ones and now contribute to help the  poorer States in the East.
Great to be part of a mutual self help outward looking Co -op of Sovereign States.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on September 14, 2017, 11:04:34 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2017, 09:14:44 PM
You can ride a bike or drive a tractor on it and the speed limit is 60mph. It ain't no motorway, boyo.

The speed limit on a Dual Carriageway is 70 mph

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/speed-limits/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on September 14, 2017, 11:17:51 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 10:34:30 AM
So the South doesn't get billions of the EU? I remember Albert Reynolds well over 20 years ago boasting of the £8bn package he'd negotiated with the EU. Up to then the whole of Cavan was notorious for potholes

'The south' is a net contributor to the EU.  As you've already been told.  You contended that it 'requires' EU money to survive.  Which is bullshit.

Sometimes I wonder if you are actually sane or not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 11:38:49 AM
The point is that without EU subventions the South would still be an exporter of people and very little else.Less than 10 years ago it went bust,it has no sovereignty over its laws,immigration etc.It is in thrall to a neighbouring island's decision to leave the EU.These are not the hallmarks of a truly independent self financing nation.

Don't get me wrong.I admire the innovation down South (Ryanair etc) and the ability to get things done,but it is not a truly independent nation sadly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on September 14, 2017, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 14, 2017, 11:02:59 AM
The sovereign 26 Counties voted to join the EU in 1972 or whenever.
If we ever leave it will be because we voted to leave.
The 6 Cos votes to stay in the EU but won't be let.
Tony still stuck in 1992 when we were a poorer EU Country and got the famous Structural and Infrastructural Funds spread over 9 years.
We are no longer one of the poorer ones and now contribute to help the  poorer States in the East.
Great to be part of a mutual self help outward looking Co -op of Sovereign States.

Of course the 6 counties won't be let. It was a UK wide vote, and that includes the 6 counties.

You almost boast about that. Seriously, why would you give a flying fcuk about poorer states in the East when the same EU screwed Ireland (and other countries) over, and will continue to do so for many years?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on September 14, 2017, 11:49:56 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 10:34:30 AM
So the South doesn't get billions of the EU? I remember Albert Reynolds well over 20 years ago boasting of the £8bn package he'd negotiated with the EU. Up to then the whole of Cavan was notorious for potholes
What is the issue here Tony other than you winding up our fellow countrymen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on September 14, 2017, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 11:38:49 AM
The point is that without EU subventions the South would still be an exporter of people and very little else.Less than 10 years ago it went bust,it has no sovereignty over its laws,immigration etc.It is in thrall to a neighbouring island's decision to leave the EU.These are not the hallmarks of a truly independent self financing nation.

Don't get me wrong.I admire the innovation down South (Ryanair etc) and the ability to get things done,but it is not a truly independent nation sadly.

No nation can be in the EU and be independent at the same time. The sooner the Irish government realise that and tell the EU to get fcuked, the better.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on September 14, 2017, 11:52:46 AM
There are no truly independent nations anymore we are all interdependent.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on September 14, 2017, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 11:38:49 AM
The point is that without EU subventions the South would still be an exporter of people and very little else.Less than 10 years ago it went bust,it has no sovereignty over its laws,immigration etc.It is in thrall to a neighbouring island's decision to leave the EU.These are not the hallmarks of a truly independent self financing nation.

Don't get me wrong.I admire the innovation down South (Ryanair etc) and the ability to get things done,but it is not a truly independent nation sadly.

Your first point is just an opinion.  I guarantee you've got no facts to back this up (barring a link to some news news article about a road being built somewhere).

The rest of what you say would apply absolutely equally to ANY other EU nation.  By your logic, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands etc etc. are all non-sovereign states.  More tosh.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 14, 2017, 01:12:42 PM
The ROI is as self governing as Austria, Italy, Belgium, Latvia, Bulgaria,   Lithuania, Croatia, Luxembourg, Cyprus,   Malta, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Estonia,    Portugal, Finland, Romania, France, Slovakia, Germany, Slovenia, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Sweden.

Which is pretty much the majority of civilised places in the World. We could be like North Korea, but I'd rather not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on September 14, 2017, 01:19:49 PM
Dunno about that.......we could certainly give the Japs a fair bit to think about, if we start whizzing rockets over their heads daily as well.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 14, 2017, 01:40:57 PM
BennyCake would seem to be all for becoming another North Korea.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on September 14, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 14, 2017, 11:51:27 AM


No nation can be in the EU and be independent at the same time. The sooner the Irish government realise that and tell the EU to get fcuked, the better.

Independence is always fluid.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 14, 2017, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on September 14, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 14, 2017, 11:51:27 AM


No nation can be in the EU and be independent at the same time. The sooner the Irish government realise that and tell the EU to get fcuked, the better.

Independence is always fluid.

The whole point of being independent is so that you can do things which benefit you, including joining the EU.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 14, 2017, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 14, 2017, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on September 14, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 14, 2017, 11:51:27 AM


No nation can be in the EU and be independent at the same time. The sooner the Irish government realise that and tell the EU to get fcuked, the better.

Independence is always fluid.

The whole point of being independent is so that you can do things which benefit you, including joining the EU.
I think the EU is okay Under a system that works for workers such as  Keynesianism. Under a plutocracy it is dangerous
the EU doesn't have bank recap or a lender of last resort. the people who designed it didn't think they would require a fire brigde.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on September 14, 2017, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 14, 2017, 03:11:04 PM


Independence is always fluid.

The whole point of being independent is so that you can do things which benefit you, including joining the EU.
[/quote]

Firstly you need to decide what level of independence you want.
The Brits are struggling with this at the minute. They decided on Brexit towards further independence before they decided how much or how little further they wanted.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on September 14, 2017, 05:14:35 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2017, 11:38:49 AM
The point is that without EU subventions the South would still be an exporter of people and very little else.Less than 10 years ago it went bust,it has no sovereignty over its laws,immigration etc.It is in thrall to a neighbouring island's decision to leave the EU.These are not the hallmarks of a truly independent self financing nation.

Don't get me wrong.I admire the innovation down South (Ryanair etc) and the ability to get things done,but it is not a truly independent nation sadly.

Yo genius, give me an example of a "of a truly independent self financing nation."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 14, 2017, 05:34:05 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 14, 2017, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 14, 2017, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on September 14, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 14, 2017, 11:51:27 AM


No nation can be in the EU and be independent at the same time. The sooner the Irish government realise that and tell the EU to get fcuked, the better.

Independence is always fluid.

The whole point of being independent is so that you can do things which benefit you, including joining the EU.
I think the EU is okay Under a system that works for workers such as  Keynesianism. Under a plutocracy it is dangerous
the EU doesn't have bank recap or a lender of last resort. the people who designed it didn't think they would require a fire brigde.

Isn't this the ECB for the Eurozone and the national central banks for non-Eurozone members?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 10:44:28 AM
There is no escaping the following

1.Without membership of or subordination to the Uk and EU respectively,neither NI or ROI are viable economic entities.

2.In return for that membership/subordination neither NI or ROI has the autonomy to make its own laws (to serve as a priority its own people), to control its own borders (and shortly to prevent the imposition of a border in Ireland that no substantial portion of the people North and South,want),and in the case of ROI,doesn't even have its own national currency.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 15, 2017, 10:59:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 10:44:28 AM
There is no escaping the following

1.Without membership of or subordination to the Uk and EU respectively,neither NI or ROI are viable economic entities.

Membership and subordination are not the same thing. It is a bit like saying that people can live in families or can be owned as slaves.
I am a member of the GAA as are many people posting here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on September 15, 2017, 11:39:50 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on September 14, 2017, 11:04:34 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2017, 09:14:44 PM
You can ride a bike or drive a tractor on it and the speed limit is 60mph. It ain't no motorway, boyo.

The speed limit on a Dual Carriageway is 70 mph

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/speed-limits/
The law in NI is slightly different in that speed limits apply to vehicles not roads.
Parts of the A1 including the bit past Banbriges & Dromore have 60MPH signs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM
Last time I looked the 26 has a massive trade surplus so is obviously viable.
We are net contributors to the EU.
We subsidise a lot of things in the 6 Cos.
The Brits are the ones who will be responsible for re establishing the Border unless they cop themselves on.
I can go to 16 or 17 other sovereign States in Europe and don't have to get ripped off by currency changers.
Why us Tony bothered anyway as he wants nothing to do with us - I presume he has a UK* passport and considers himself a British citizen?
* Only passport that contains the words "Northern Ireland".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on September 15, 2017, 11:57:32 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 10:44:28 AM
There is no escaping the following

1.Without membership of or subordination to the Uk and EU respectively,neither NI or ROI are viable economic entities.

2.In return for that membership/subordination neither NI or ROI has the autonomy to make its own laws (to serve as a priority its own people), to control its own borders (and shortly to prevent the imposition of a border in Ireland that no substantial portion of the people North and South,want),and in the case of ROI,doesn't even have its own national currency.

Nice semantics. NI has membership of the UK but for the ROI it is subordination to the EU.

You seem to be ging the 1922 Stormont opt out the same weight as the 1973 (!) ROI referendum.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on September 15, 2017, 12:31:32 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 10:44:28 AM
There is no escaping the following

1.Without membership of or subordination to the Uk and EU respectively,neither NI or ROI are viable economic entities.

2.In return for that membership/subordination neither NI or ROI has the autonomy to make its own laws (to serve as a priority its own people), to control its own borders (and shortly to prevent the imposition of a border in Ireland that no substantial portion of the people North and South,want),and in the case of ROI,doesn't even have its own national currency.

That's not unusual nor surprising. If we want to sell our product to Germany our product needs to be at an acceptable German standard rather than a standard we might have ourselves. To make this easy we set the same standard across member states.
If we want our people to have the freedom of movement within agreeable Countries we need to all understand and accept a common set of law.
This works both ways.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 12:35:19 PM
For the record I hold an Irish Passport.I am not British in any way shape or form nor Unionist.However I am a pragmatist.

Why does the ROI if its a net contributor to the EU insist on continued membership in the light of its leading trading partner,the UK,leaving,thus risking a border on the island of Ireland?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 15, 2017, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 12:35:19 PM
Why does the ROI if its a net contributor to the EU insist on continued membership in the light of its leading trading partner,the UK,leaving,thus risking a border on the island of Ireland?

because it is being in the EU that makes it prosperous enough to be a net contributor?

In any case leaving now would be like a GAA club that got a grant from central funds for its new field and when it was built then leaving the GAA because it was now being asked to chip in towards a new field for another club that hadn't yet got one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on September 15, 2017, 12:44:56 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 12:35:19 PM
For the record I hold an Irish Passport.I am not British in any way shape or form nor Unionist.However I am a pragmatist.

Why does the ROI if its a net contributor to the EU insist on continued membership in the light of its leading trading partner,the UK,leaving,thus risking a border on the island of Ireland?

The UK have not left anything yet. Should they leave and the terms become unsuitable to the RoI I'm sure they will look at it. It would be incredibly stupid to leave the EU to maintain current trade with a headless UK.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 15, 2017, 06:58:32 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 10:44:28 AM
to control its own borders

The idea that a nation state should control absolutely everyone who crosses its borders is a fairly recent invention. Border controls weren't all that common before WWI.

"In 1904, the United Kingdom established the world's first border and immigration control; all residents of Hong Kong were given citizenship as Citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC)."

Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong)

Quoteand in the case of ROI,doesn't even have its own national currency.
Neither does Austria.
Neither does Belgium.
Neither does Cyprus.
Neither does Estonia.
Neither does Finland.
Neither does France.
Neither does Germany.
Neither does Greece.
Neither does Italy.
Neither does Latvia.
Neither does Lithuania.
Neither does Luxembourg.
Neither does Malta.
Neither does Netherlands.
Neither does Portugal.
Neither does Slovakia.
Neither does Slovenia.
Neither does Spain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 07:32:29 PM
We are not arguing about those countries.My contention is simply the inability of Ireland,North or South,or together,to be truly independent,sovereign and economically viable.For fifty years this was attempted in the South but miserably failed.Even in the boom years the Republic still went bankrupt.

Sweden,Norway etc are the models of independent nations which sadly Ireland cannot match.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 15, 2017, 07:39:35 PM
Sweden is an EU member.

The ROI was doing fine until it joined the Euro. Prior to that the Celtic Tiger was a genuine success story, it was based on exports and competitiveness rather than property speculation, there was no excessive consumption, and with control over its own interest rates it had corrective mechanisms that kicked into place when the economy was in danger of overheating.

There are issues with the way the Eurozone is managed, but the idea that the Free State is an inherently unviable state is tripe.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on September 15, 2017, 07:52:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 07:32:29 PM
Sweden,Norway etc are the models of independent nations which sadly Ireland cannot match.

Donald Tony, what about these countries is it that you believe makes them beyond reach?Or more to the point what about those economies make them models for Ireland's achieving your mystical concept of independence (which you can't actually explain)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on September 15, 2017, 07:54:43 PM
Ireland's doing pretty great, whatever the people in the six counties want to convince themselves of to sleep better at night.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 08:16:40 PM
It is not viable without being subordinate to a German dominated EU,which provided the structural funds etc.Even with this crutch,the political classes still failed to avoid bankruptcy,requiring a loan solely on the non negotiable EU terms and a EU drafted budget,bringing great hardship for the ordinary indigenous population.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 15, 2017, 08:30:03 PM
Indigenous population???
People with Gaelic surnames?
Descendents of Tuatha De Danann??
No recession in the North?

I believe Montenegro and Kosovo use the € also even though not in the EU.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 15, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 08:16:40 PM
It is not viable without being subordinate to a German dominated EU,which provided the structural funds etc.Even with this crutch,the political classes still failed to avoid bankruptcy,requiring a loan solely on the non negotiable EU terms and a EU drafted budget,bringing great hardship for the ordinary indigenous population.

Your claim about the structural funds has been debunked many times. Why do you keep repeating it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 15, 2017, 09:50:36 PM
Because his mind is stuck in an outdated Unionist mantra of "Free State bad N.I good".
God help him.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 16, 2017, 12:44:32 AM
Yawn.If you could read,you would see constantly my point is,that neither part of Ireland is economically viable without the support of the UK and EU.

Hence the South shitting themselves over the prospect of Brexit.A truly independent country would not worry what a neighbouring country does,except it was threatening an invasion
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 16, 2017, 12:54:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2017, 12:44:32 AM
Yawn.If you could read,you would see constantly my point is,that neither part of Ireland is economically viable without the support of the UK and EU.

Your "point" is unsubstantiated nonsense.

QuoteHence the South shitting themselves over the prospect of Brexit.A truly independent country would not worry what a neighbouring country does,except it was threatening an invasion

Even if you own your own house, you don't want bowsies living next door.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on September 16, 2017, 07:47:01 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2017, 07:32:29 PM
We are not arguing about those countries.My contention is simply the inability of Ireland,North or South,or together,to be truly independent,sovereign and economically viable.For fifty years this was attempted in the South but miserably failed.Even in the boom years the Republic still went bankrupt.

Sweden,Norway etc are the models of independent nations which sadly Ireland cannot match.

Which Countries are we arguing about?

Neither of those are comparable. Nor are the independent.
Sweden are EU members.
Norway are members of the EEC and Schengen.
Even though Norway have a huge economic base in oil they are still not independent.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: punt kick on September 16, 2017, 09:04:04 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 16, 2017, 12:54:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2017, 12:44:32 AM
Yawn.If you could read,you would see constantly my point is,that neither part of Ireland is economically viable without the support of the UK and EU.

Your "point" is unsubstantiated nonsense.

QuoteHence the South shitting themselves over the prospect of Brexit.A truly independent country would not worry what a neighbouring country does,except it was threatening an invasion

Even if you own your own house, you don't want bowsies living next door.

With all the chic liberals on this board, they wouldn't care who was next door, live and let live.  Oh wait they are all full of shite and would care immensely but not on a discussion board.  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on September 16, 2017, 04:09:21 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2017, 12:44:32 AM
Yawn.If you could read,you would see

Double yawn, if you could read and understand perhaps your point wouldn't be completely wrong. You are talking complete and utter nonsense dressing it up as educated conjecture.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on September 16, 2017, 06:13:00 PM
Look,shortly a border will be imposed on the island of Ireland against the wishes of the electorate and majority of politicians North and South.This border defying the democratic wishes of the people North and South is a direct result of the North's subjugation to the UK and the South's to the EU.Thus explodes the myth of any part of Ireland being independent.

The North has been dependent on British subventions since the demise of its legendary manufacturing industries,ship building and linen etc.

Similarly in the South,its attempt at independence,since partition until EEC membership in 1973 was a huge failure resulting in record levels of emigration etc.

Ireland North and South is not independent,and a United Ireland would not be independent either.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 16, 2017, 09:19:43 PM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzźzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2017, 07:00:54 PM
Christ. If in doubt, just say "look" and repeat your defeated points again and again.

I'm out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on October 17, 2017, 11:35:46 AM
The Taoiseach has come out and said that he doesn't believe a border poll of 50% plus one should be enough for a United Ireland.

What do we think??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on October 17, 2017, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: screenexile on October 17, 2017, 11:35:46 AM
The Taoiseach has come out and said that he doesn't believe a border poll of 50% plus one should be enough for a United Ireland.

What do we think??
He's moving the goalposts
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hereiam on October 17, 2017, 11:38:12 AM
Don't like him to be honest.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JohnDenver on October 17, 2017, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: screenexile on October 17, 2017, 11:35:46 AM
The Taoiseach has come out and said that he doesn't believe a border poll of 50% plus one should be enough for a United Ireland.

What do we think??

Would 50% plus one have been enough to pass the same sex marriage in the south back in 2015?

I know it passed by more than that in the finish up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Denn Forever on October 17, 2017, 12:03:27 PM
Look at the problems that a 52-48% vote is causng for Brexit.  No matter what the vote is somebody will complain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 06:23:04 PM
The handover of Hong Kong and Macau back to China offers lessons for the future reunification of Ireland.

http://www.forasach.ie/2017/10/13/china-hong-kong-handover-ireland/ (http://www.forasach.ie/2017/10/13/china-hong-kong-handover-ireland/)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on October 17, 2017, 10:27:16 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 06:23:04 PM
The handover of Hong Kong and Macau back to China offers lessons for the future reunification of Ireland.

http://www.forasach.ie/2017/10/13/china-hong-kong-handover-ireland/ (http://www.forasach.ie/2017/10/13/china-hong-kong-handover-ireland/)

Are you sure?? China have broken the agreement!!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/i-should-have-done-more-chris-patten-leaving-hong-kong-without-democracy-china
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 11:14:08 PM
Maybe, but I think the Special Administrative Region idea is sound in principle. In a future united Ireland agreement you could say that the north should have SAR status and it would take a supermajority to scrap it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on October 17, 2017, 11:40:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 11:14:08 PM
Maybe, but I think the Special Administrative Region idea is sound in principle. In a future united Ireland agreement you could say that the north should have SAR status and it would take a supermajority to scrap it.

Never mind your S.A.R
Let's see some decent economic argument that will convince Unionists and Nationalists that they will be better off in a united Ireland
Don't be of any doubt that the nationalist will follow his pocket as quick as the Unionist
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 11:47:13 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on October 17, 2017, 11:40:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 11:14:08 PM
Maybe, but I think the Special Administrative Region idea is sound in principle. In a future united Ireland agreement you could say that the north should have SAR status and it would take a supermajority to scrap it.

Never mind your S.A.R
Let's see some decent economic argument that will convince Unionists and Nationalists that they will be better off in a united Ireland
Don't be of any doubt that the nationalist will follow his pocket as quick as the Unionist

The economic argument in favour of reunification has already been proven (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/both-republic-and-north-could-benefit-from-united-ireland-1.2823081). But good luck getting that to resonate with the unionists, they'll just dismiss it out of hand. That's a detailed report put together by senior and impartial economists. On the other hand, Jimmy Deenihan was once asked a question on camera about whether or not we could afford reunification, and the unprepared minister grumbled for a second and said "uh, uh, no really....."

Guess which response the unionists take more seriously? That's right, the minister's heat-of-the-moment response to a question he was unprepared for. That's the answer they want to hear, that's the answer their going to accept.

Economic arguments are all well and good but you're never going to win over the unionists if you can't allay their fears and appeal to their emotions. People vote with their hearts, not their heads.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 17, 2017, 11:58:54 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 11:47:13 PM
The economic argument in favour of reunification has already been proven (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/both-republic-and-north-could-benefit-from-united-ireland-1.2823081). But good luck getting that to resonate with the unionists, they'll just dismiss it out of hand. That's a detailed report put together by senior and impartial economists. On the other hand, Jimmy Deenihan was once asked a question on camera about whether or not we could afford reunification, and the unprepared minister grumbled for a second and said "uh, uh, no really....."


Sadly, the economic argument has not been proven. A fundamental problem is that SF are not credible on economic matters and don't seem to have realised that economics is the biggest obstacle to moving thing on.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on October 18, 2017, 12:14:29 AM
Lads all us be long dead before theres any united ireland; when a referendum will come and it will happen; the size of a defeat on the percentage vote would kill another referendum for many a year! I nearly say there be a 60-65% vote to remain
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 12:41:57 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 17, 2017, 11:58:54 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 11:47:13 PM
The economic argument in favour of reunification has already been proven (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/both-republic-and-north-could-benefit-from-united-ireland-1.2823081). But good luck getting that to resonate with the unionists, they'll just dismiss it out of hand. That's a detailed report put together by senior and impartial economists. On the other hand, Jimmy Deenihan was once asked a question on camera about whether or not we could afford reunification, and the unprepared minister grumbled for a second and said "uh, uh, no really....."


Sadly, the economic argument has not been proven. A fundamental problem is that SF are not credible on economic matters and don't seem to have realised that economics is the biggest obstacle to moving thing on.

That report was not published by SF.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 12:43:34 AM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 18, 2017, 12:14:29 AM
Lads all us be long dead before theres any united ireland; when a referendum will come and it will happen; the size of a defeat on the percentage vote would kill another referendum for many a year! I nearly say there be a 60-65% vote to remain

Of course there would. I often think SF can be a bit delusional about this sort of thing. The Brexit vote might have moved the needle a bit, but we're a long way off a nationalist majority in the north and there's much work to be done to build one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 01:01:32 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 12:41:57 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 17, 2017, 11:58:54 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 17, 2017, 11:47:13 PM
The economic argument in favour of reunification has already been proven (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/both-republic-and-north-could-benefit-from-united-ireland-1.2823081). But good luck getting that to resonate with the unionists, they'll just dismiss it out of hand. That's a detailed report put together by senior and impartial economists. On the other hand, Jimmy Deenihan was once asked a question on camera about whether or not we could afford reunification, and the unprepared minister grumbled for a second and said "uh, uh, no really....."


Sadly, the economic argument has not been proven. A fundamental problem is that SF are not credible on economic matters and don't seem to have realised that economics is the biggest obstacle to moving thing on.

That report was not published by SF.

It was effectively paid for by SF. I'm not saying it is wrong, but lot more work is needed. Nobody much is doing this work.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on October 18, 2017, 01:31:32 AM
read a book

A United Ireland Why Unification Is Inevitable and How It Will Come About
By Kevin Meagher
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 09:09:34 AM
In other news,Leo,barely hiding the Freestate establishment's utter fear and paranoia over the mere prospect of reunification,stated yesterday that 50 plus one percent in favour of Irish unity,in any referendum,would not be sufficient to gain unity.The GFA does not compel unity by referendum but merely states that the UK and Freestate will jointly examine the best way forward in the aftermath of a referendum.

Oh for those of you North and South who do not yet understand,economic arguments,in favour of unity or the status quo,will not have any impact on unionists or nationalists in the North whatsoever,as identity and what they see as their birthright,trumps all reason and logic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 18, 2017, 10:03:19 AM
Do Tesco in the 6 Cos. take Passports in lieu of cash?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 10:16:44 AM
So you think the UK is just going to magically and completely turn off the money tap?

If economic arguments won the day, catholic/nationalists up here would long ago have decided the UK link was preferable,or unionists might have even been mildly tempted to look at Re-Unification during the Celtic Tiger years.Alas,not a chance
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fat Angry Motorist on October 18, 2017, 10:18:30 AM
Disappointing, but not unexpected, to see Varadkar parroting the Unionist line.  Didn't see the programme but did they ask him if a 50%+1 vote would be acceptable to keep NI in the UK?  I've always thought that the whole referendum process as laid out in the GFA was where SF and the SDLP had their eye wiped by the Brits.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 10:24:36 AM
The SDLP are and always were mere Dublin proxies and SF have their hands tied by the Brits about the past.There is no desire for unity by any southern parties,except SF,far less any strategy to deliver it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 10:37:33 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 10:16:44 AM
So you think the UK is just going to magically and completely turn off the money tap?

The issue is firstly the ability of London to pay, they are crippling this themselves. The issue is the extent to which London creates a need for handouts by crippling the NI economy e.g. Brexit. After that, the issue is the comparison between the continued flow of handouts and London's willingness to get provide a decent settlement to get rid of NI.

QuoteIf economic arguments won the day, catholic/nationalists up here would long ago have decided the UK link was preferable,or unionists might have even been mildly tempted to look at Re-Unification during the Celtic Tiger years.Alas,not a chance

From here on, the balance of power lies with a group in the middle, as nationalist and unionist numbers are about equal. These Rory McIllroy types are influenced by economic arguments and other issues.

Quote from: Fat Angry Motorist on October 18, 2017, 10:18:30 AM
Disappointing, but not unexpected, to see Varadkar parroting the Unionist line.  Didn't see the programme but did they ask him if a 50%+1 vote would be acceptable to keep NI in the UK?  I've always thought that the whole referendum process as laid out in the GFA was where SF and the SDLP had their eye wiped by the Brits.

Varadkar's phrasing was unfortunate, for someone usually quite sharp. His main point was to support the GFA which had widespread support and postpone the UI to another day and perhaps a point about wanting agreement.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 18, 2017, 11:14:35 AM
I presume after the new All Ireland State is set up British level pensions and Social welfare payments will continue in the North Eastern Autonomous Area?
After all we don't want them scroungers living off us until they learn our work ethic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 11:28:03 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 18, 2017, 11:14:35 AM
I presume after the new All Ireland State is set up British level pensions and Social welfare payments will continue in the North Eastern Autonomous Area?
After all we don't want them scroungers living off us until they learn our work ethic.

Anyone continuing to hold a British passport should have British level pension.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
You make a valid point.If the UK is ever unable to bail out the North,the certainty is that Dublin will never be able to do it.

I still maintain there is no meaningful proportion of the Northern electorate who are amenable to economic arguments for a United Ireland,if any real arguments in this regard,do exist.Add in cultural differences,eg the role religious belief plays in the North,and you have after one hundred years,two practically irreconcilables entities.

The federal option,doesn't change anything,unionists would still control the North
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 11:42:38 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
You make a valid point.If the UK is ever unable to bail out the North,the certainty is that Dublin will never be able to do it.

I made a more subtle point in that the UK will be able to have a less generous measure, because it will be poorer and because there may be other pressures on public expenditure. The limitations of a subsidised NI compared to a ROI earning its own keep will become increasingly obvious.


Quote
The federal option,doesn't change anything,unionists would still control the North

Unionists do not make up a majority in the North at the present time and by definition they will not when a UI comes about.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on October 18, 2017, 12:18:02 PM
Varadkar is all PR and image, but his latest comments are very disconcerting for nationalists in the north. Moving the goalposts from what was signed up for in the GFA. Does he not even see the irony of the fact that an artificial majority was created when drawing up boundaries to split the state to ensure this 50+1 unionist majority. Now he realises that the gap is narrowing he is attempting to suggest that the majority needed should be more than this. Just a typical Fine Gael me me, I'm alright jack attitude. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 04:35:28 PM
Lord Kilclooney has suggested a Civil War would ensue from loyalists should a United Ireland come about as a result of a 50% plus one scenario
Designed to cause more fear in Dublin.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 18, 2017, 04:52:24 PM
You mean John Bigot Taylor the last survivor of the old Stormont regime.
He'd be better off advising the Unionist minority in the 6 Cos to start making friends with their neighbours in the 6 Cos and then in the 26.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on October 18, 2017, 05:27:03 PM
Mad for the ould partition is JT

"In January 2012, Taylor wrote to The Scotsman newspaper asserting that Scotland should be subject to partition, depending on the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 10:16:44 AM


If economic arguments won the day, catholic/nationalists up here would long ago have decided the UK link was preferable,or unionists might have even been mildly tempted to look at Re-Unification during the Celtic Tiger years.Alas,not a chance

Spot on. Northern nationalists still wanted unity with the south back when the free state was still impoverished.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 05:32:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 18, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
You make a valid point.If the UK is ever unable to bail out the North,the certainty is that Dublin will never be able to do it.

I still maintain there is no meaningful proportion of the Northern electorate who are amenable to economic arguments for a United Ireland,if any real arguments in this regard,do exist.Add in cultural differences,eg the role religious belief plays in the North,and you have after one hundred years,two practically irreconcilables entities.

The federal option,doesn't change anything,unionists would still control the North

Would they? They'd be junior partners in a power-sharing executive (assuming we keep the Stormont arrangements in place) but it'd be a bit of a stretch to say that they would "control the north."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 05:33:24 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 18, 2017, 12:18:02 PM
Varadkar is all PR and image, but his latest comments are very disconcerting for nationalists in the north. Moving the goalposts from what was signed up for in the GFA. Does he not even see the irony of the fact that an artificial majority was created when drawing up boundaries to split the state to ensure this 50+1 unionist majority. Now he realises that the gap is narrowing he is attempting to suggest that the majority needed should be more than this. Just a typical Fine Gael me me, I'm alright jack attitude.

That's a unionist tradition. The unionist demand escalator has always gone upwards no matter what was agreed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on October 18, 2017, 05:27:03 PM
Mad for the ould partition is JT

"In January 2012, Taylor wrote to The Scotsman newspaper asserting that Scotland should be subject to partition, depending on the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum"

Easy cure, leave them places like Newtownabbey and Larne out of a United Ireland and so there more would be 50%+1 and anyone in the rest of the wee 6 can move there if they don't like it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 07:14:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on October 18, 2017, 05:27:03 PM
Mad for the ould partition is JT

"In January 2012, Taylor wrote to The Scotsman newspaper asserting that Scotland should be subject to partition, depending on the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum"

Easy cure, leave them places like Newtownabbey and Larne out of a United Ireland and so there more would be 50%+1 and anyone in the rest of the wee 6 can move there if they don't like it.

I'd say let them keep Larne. Or Bangor. I could live without Bangor.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on October 18, 2017, 07:17:58 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 07:14:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on October 18, 2017, 05:27:03 PM
Mad for the ould partition is JT

"In January 2012, Taylor wrote to The Scotsman newspaper asserting that Scotland should be subject to partition, depending on the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum"

Easy cure, leave them places like Newtownabbey and Larne out of a United Ireland and so there more would be 50%+1 and anyone in the rest of the wee 6 can move there if they don't like it.

I'd say let them keep Larne. Or Bangor. I could live without Bangor.

Belfast could be like Berlin with the Russians in the eastern part,might have add to the wall though
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 07:21:07 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 07:14:06 PM
I'd say let them keep Larne. Or Bangor. I could live without Bangor.

A town with its Irish name on its coat of arms and home of a major centre of learning in ancient times, should be in Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2017, 07:25:08 PM
It already is
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 18, 2017, 08:24:49 PM
Fair point. Under independent government then.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omochain on October 18, 2017, 11:39:33 PM
Maybe a bit of historical perspective on this might help the debate.

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-boundary-commission-debacle-1925-aftermath-implications/

Cosgrave's party does not have a good track record negotiating with the Unionists. On the other hand Dev and his crowd were worse..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 19, 2017, 12:50:39 AM
Quote from: omochain on October 18, 2017, 11:39:33 PM
Maybe a bit of historical perspective on this might help the debate.

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-boundary-commission-debacle-1925-aftermath-implications/

Cosgrave's party does not have a good track record negotiating with the Unionists. On the other hand Dev and his crowd were worse..

Cosgrave's party might have done better if the Dev hadn't start a war in Munster to free the North
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on October 19, 2017, 10:44:10 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 19, 2017, 12:50:39 AM


Cosgrave's party might have done better if the Dev hadn't start a war in Munster to free the North

Do you think a different partition would have been better?

Purely academic but I see it often now too.
There are post election maps of the north divided in green and orange after every election. Then there are nationalists/republicans claiming the map shows something great as the green expands and the orange becomes even more cornered.
"the greening of the west of the bann" was one of the most sickening post election slogans I've ever heard.

larger partition, smaller partition, re-partition etc.
There is no good to come from partition and there is no good to come from clearer lines of social division.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 19, 2017, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on October 19, 2017, 10:44:10 AM
Do you think a different partition would have been better?

I didn't say that, I referred to the pointlessness of the civil war wrecking Munster, which was surely a distraction to the first 26 county government.
But I do not think some other partition is good either, the differences are largely contrived and should not be aggravated by partition. Mind you any other partition would not have included my house.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on October 19, 2017, 02:25:23 PM

QuoteThere is no good to come from partition

Quote from: armaghniac on October 19, 2017, 01:32:25 PM
Mind you any other partition would not have included my house.

Maybe I should reconsider my position.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on October 21, 2017, 09:52:13 PM
To those quislings who sold out the patriot game.

However, he insisted it is not scaremongering to be concerned about the impact of an Irish language act.

He said that if one is passed, people would no longer be reliant on flags or painted kerbstones - instead they would know whose territory they were in by looking at the road signs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 22, 2017, 07:17:01 PM
There won't be a Border Poll and even if there was to be it would be heavily in favour of the status quo:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/ (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 22, 2017, 07:33:26 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on October 22, 2017, 07:17:01 PM
There won't be a Border Poll and even if there was to be it would be heavily in favour of the status quo:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/ (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/)
h

There won't be a border  poll because the necessary preparation hasn't been done and the main nationalist party in NI has only limited awareness of the economic issues that will swing the day, never mind the ability to produce a plan to deal with them

At this point people do not want a border poll, they want the GFA  to continue without the unionists being able to block it and without the British being able to overthrow it with Brexit bollix. Within the context of orderly conditions people then want plans for a UI to be advanced.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 22, 2017, 08:18:36 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on October 22, 2017, 07:17:01 PM
There won't be a Border Poll and even if there was to be it would be heavily in favour of the status quo:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/ (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/)
People expect stability but if Brexit happens all.bets are off. The DUP hate the EU. They don't understand economics
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on October 22, 2017, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 22, 2017, 08:18:36 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on October 22, 2017, 07:17:01 PM
There won't be a Border Poll and even if there was to be it would be heavily in favour of the status quo:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/ (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/)
People expect stability but if Brexit happens all.bets are off. The DUP hate the EU. They don't understand economics

Wanting out of the EU is not all about economics. People voted out because they were sick of the shite the EU were imposing on them. And they were totally right in getting out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 22, 2017, 08:38:26 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 22, 2017, 08:18:36 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on October 22, 2017, 07:17:01 PM
There won't be a Border Poll and even if there was to be it would be heavily in favour of the status quo:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/ (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/22/latest-findings-on-a-border-poll/)
People expect stability but if Brexit happens all.bets are off. The DUP hate the EU. They don't understand economics
It is happening.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 22, 2017, 10:54:35 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2017, 08:31:40 PM
Wanting out of the EU is not all about economics. People voted out because they were sick of the shite the EU were imposing on them. And they were totally right in getting out.

Examples of this 'shite'?

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on October 22, 2017, 08:38:26 PM
It is happening.

A rulya  Brexit pisses of so many influential people that there is a fair chance of it either being cancelled, postponed indefinitely or reduced to BINO.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on October 22, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Well, they can control how many comes in, pass their own laws instead of being handed down laws by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, set it's own taxes. Being in the EU has affected wages, jobs and put pressure on housing, infrastructure, nhs, schools, manufacturing etc.

EU plans for an anthem, flag, president, etc is another thing that was ridding people of their identity and will continue to. Hopefully Brexit is the first dominoe to fall.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 22, 2017, 11:38:38 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Well, they can control how many comes in, pass their own laws instead of being handed down laws by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, set it's own taxes. Being in the EU has affected wages, jobs and put pressure on housing, infrastructure, nhs, schools, manufacturing etc.

You are reading too many second rate English newspapers.  You could say that the EU has affected wages by increasing them and provided business for manufacturing. The problems with the NHS, schools etc are down to the right wing British government, the EU is not stopping them investing in these things.

QuoteEU plans for an anthem, flag, president, etc is another thing that was ridding people of their identity and will continue to.

It is adding to people's identity. I am no less Irish than I was in 1973. Are you?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 23, 2017, 10:23:28 AM
There used to be an aul saying that the first thing on a Republican agenda was the split, ala Life of Brian. A UI will not be decided primarily on economic terms as for many it is an emotional ingrained position. Unionists are more united because they have only on position to defend, their place in the UK. But before we can go any where near a vote the nationalist parties need to come together and form a coherent view. In my view 50+1% won't work either there will need to be a transition with cash from the UK and EU and this will in all likelihood play out over a couple of decades at least.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on October 23, 2017, 10:32:35 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Well, they can control how many comes in, pass their own laws instead of being handed down laws by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, set it's own taxes. Being in the EU has affected wages, jobs and put pressure on housing, infrastructure, nhs, schools, manufacturing etc.

EU plans for an anthem, flag, president, etc is another thing that was ridding people of their identity and will continue to. Hopefully Brexit is the first dominoe to fall.

Yip,
   Those big farmers in Antrim and Down feckin hate farm subsidies and that cheap labour that came in from Eastern Europe. They really really hated it.

The fishermen also hated these quotas but were also in receipt of subsidies and availing of cheap labour which they also  hated so much. They also hated exporting most of their fish to mainland Europe. That will become so much easier shortly.

Thankfully that will all come to an end with the advent of Brexit..................
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on October 23, 2017, 10:48:29 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Well, they can control how many comes in, pass their own laws instead of being handed down laws by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, set it's own taxes. Being in the EU has affected wages, jobs and put pressure on housing, infrastructure, nhs, schools, manufacturing etc.

EU plans for an anthem, flag, president, etc is another thing that was ridding people of their identity and will continue to. Hopefully Brexit is the first dominoe to fall.

Current legislation in place means that Britain can control how many comes in the Government just chose not to!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 23, 2017, 03:52:57 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 22, 2017, 10:54:35 PM
reduced to BINO.

Even Urban Dictionary isn't helping me out here. What's BINO?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on October 23, 2017, 03:59:09 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 23, 2017, 03:52:57 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 22, 2017, 10:54:35 PM
reduced to BINO.

Even Urban Dictionary isn't helping me out here. What's BINO?

Brexit in name only
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hound on October 24, 2017, 07:36:15 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Well, they can control how many comes in, pass their own laws instead of being handed down laws by unelected bureaucrats in Europe

It's funny this is a statement made by many pro-Brexiteers, yet the Tories haven't actually been able to find any "bad" laws among the ones handed down by EU, so are transposing every single one of them formally into UK law. They say they'll revisit them later, but that's bluster.

It's as if everyone has forgotten what a pain in the ass the UK was to the EU. Any new law they didn't like when it was being proposed they shot it down or amended so it was acceptable!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 12:24:25 PM
Poll by Lucid Talk carried out at the end of last week.  Over 3,000 responses representing a weighted response of 2,080.

Figures rounded up a wee bit:

Do you think there should be a border poll?

Yes, Within 5 years - 47%
Yes, between 5 and 10 years - 15%
Yes, but more than 10 years from now - 17%
Never - 18%
D/K - 3%

What should be the winning measurement?:

50% + 1 - 54%

If there was a border poll tomorrow how would you vote?

Remain (part of UK) - 55%
Leave (United Ireland) - 34%
D/K - 10%
Wouldn't Vote - 1%

If Brexit goes tits up (paraphrase!):

Remain (part of UK) - 54%
Leave (United Ireland) - 46%

Excludes D/K and non voters.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: illdecide on October 25, 2017, 12:55:47 PM
I haven't been involved in the debates and i'm certainly not going to read back over 100 pages so if this has already been discussed "Sorry".

Is there a possibility that the Government can ask for another referendum on Brexit as i believe if there was another one the vote would be a lot different that last May/June, the only reason i'm asking is the vote here for politicians was done and then 6 months later another one was called. I know an election and referendum are different but don't know if another one can be called?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 12:58:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 12:24:25 PM
If there was a border poll tomorrow how would you vote?

Remain (part of UK) - 55%
Leave (United Ireland) - 34%
D/K - 10%
Wouldn't Vote - 1%

If Brexit goes tits up (paraphrase!):

Remain (part of UK) - 54%
Leave (United Ireland) - 46%

Excludes D/K and non voters.

I presume there is still a few percent of D/K in the last figure.
What the last figures show is that there is a few percent of the Remain who will switch to Leave if the circumstances are right, and probably a much bigger proportion of D/K who are influenced by the exact proposition put forward.

Brexit will probably not go entirely "tits up" but will rather provide a medium-term problem, meaning that there will be a few percent of people thinking about things over the next while. The problem is there does not seem to be any NI nationalist politician with any capacity to lead in these circumstances.

Quote from: illdecide on October 25, 2017, 12:55:47 PM
Is there a possibility that the Government can ask for another referendum on Brexit as i believe if there was another one the vote would be a lot different that last May/June, the only reason i'm asking is the vote here for politicians was done and then 6 months later another one was called. I know an election and referendum are different but don't know if another one can be called?

Perhaps you need the Brexit thread. Of course, they can call another referendum, but they won't. Davis says today in that Westminister won't even get a vote on Brexit before they leave!! More likely the government could fall because of a backbench Tory revolt and there could be another Westminister election.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 12:58:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 12:24:25 PM
If there was a border poll tomorrow how would you vote?

Remain (part of UK) - 55%
Leave (United Ireland) - 34%
D/K - 10%
Wouldn't Vote - 1%

If Brexit goes tits up (paraphrase!):

Remain (part of UK) - 54%
Leave (United Ireland) - 46%

Excludes D/K and non voters.

I presume there is still a few percent of D/K in the last figure.
What the last figures show is that there is a few percent of the Remain who will switch to Leave if the circumstances are right, and probably a much bigger proportion of D/K who are influenced by the exact proposition put forward.

Brexit will probably not go entirely "tits up" but will rather provide a medium-term problem, meaning that there will be a few percent of people thinking about things over the next while. The problem is there does not seem to be any NI nationalist politician with any capacity to lead in these circumstances.

Full results not published yet I took these from a radio interview with Lucid Talk.  I think he said the "swing voters" in the "Bad Brexit" scenario are some Alliance, Greens, PBP and some D/Ks etc
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:04:23 PM
Full results not published yet I took these from a radio interview with Lucid Talk.  I think he said the "swing voters" in the "Bad Brexit" scenario are some Alliance, Greens, PBP etc

This is evident if you read Slugger.
A small number of UUs in areas where Alliance are not strong might be in this category also.

The question what constitutes a bad Brexit? A complete cockup with right wing Tories in power? This is possible but after the last election the people in England might rebel and put in Labour.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:04:23 PM
Full results not published yet I took these from a radio interview with Lucid Talk.  I think he said the "swing voters" in the "Bad Brexit" scenario are some Alliance, Greens, PBP etc

This is evident if you read Slugger.
A small number of UUs in areas where Alliance are not strong might be in this category also.

The question what constitutes a bad Brexit?

Brexit ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 01:10:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:04:23 PM
Full results not published yet I took these from a radio interview with Lucid Talk.  I think he said the "swing voters" in the "Bad Brexit" scenario are some Alliance, Greens, PBP etc

This is evident if you read Slugger.
A small number of UUs in areas where Alliance are not strong might be in this category also.

The question what constitutes a bad Brexit?

Brexit ;)

We have that word BINO again.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 01:10:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 25, 2017, 01:04:23 PM
Full results not published yet I took these from a radio interview with Lucid Talk.  I think he said the "swing voters" in the "Bad Brexit" scenario are some Alliance, Greens, PBP etc

This is evident if you read Slugger.
A small number of UUs in areas where Alliance are not strong might be in this category also.

The question what constitutes a bad Brexit?

Brexit ;)

We have that word BINO again.

He (I think his name is Bill White?) did say (as you have stated too) that the important point is that there are circumstances in which some people would change their view on NI's constitutional position based on the performance of the economy, being close to the EU etc
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 02:28:57 PM
The stupidity of Foster and the DUP is remarkable. Two years ago a UI wasn't at all on the agenda for the middle of the road person then along comes Brexit and the idea is now out there. They are lucky in that Adams is not only a bogey man but is incapable of any coherent discussion on a plan. Hopefully they won't remain lucky.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 25, 2017, 02:38:42 PM
Yet Brian Feeney is telling Varadkar to act as a Taoiseach in I News today,pointing out that Nationalist politicians in the North have always struggled to get Taoisigh from De Valera onwards to stand up for Northern nationalists.

They just don't care and never have cared.Why waste time craving for a United Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 02:44:00 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 25, 2017, 02:38:42 PM
They just don't care and never have cared.Why waste time craving for a United Ireland

When you are voting for them, they will care more.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 10:45:53 PM
The radio programme is here
https://embeds.audioboom.com/posts/6426244-listen-full-analysis-of-our-exclusive-border-poll-survey-with-lucidtalk/embed/v4

There is a notable pro UI majority among those under 45 of 55% or so. This group are more likely to be from a nationalist background and presumably are more anti Brexit than older people like Tony Fearon. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 25, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Is Tony pro Brexit?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on October 26, 2017, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 10:45:53 PM
The radio programme is here
https://embeds.audioboom.com/posts/6426244-listen-full-analysis-of-our-exclusive-border-poll-survey-with-lucidtalk/embed/v4

There is a notable pro UI majority among those under 45 of 55% or so. This group are more likely to be from a nationalist background and presumably are more anti Brexit than older people like Tony Fearon.

I see a hard brexit has the UI vote at 45% not bad for lucid talk which often has support for UI at something ridiculous like 20%
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 26, 2017, 12:17:09 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on October 26, 2017, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 10:45:53 PM
The radio programme is here
https://embeds.audioboom.com/posts/6426244-listen-full-analysis-of-our-exclusive-border-poll-survey-with-lucidtalk/embed/v4

There is a notable pro UI majority among those under 45 of 55% or so. This group are more likely to be from a nationalist background and presumably are more anti Brexit than older people like Tony Fearon.

I see a hard brexit has the UI vote at 45% not bad for lucid talk which often has support for UI at something ridiculous like 20%

This may cause some apprehension in some quarters. 45% and the age differences here mean 50% in 14 years.
If you were a unionist, then stopping Brexit might seem a wise move.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on October 26, 2017, 12:30:01 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 26, 2017, 12:17:09 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on October 26, 2017, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 10:45:53 PM
The radio programme is here
https://embeds.audioboom.com/posts/6426244-listen-full-analysis-of-our-exclusive-border-poll-survey-with-lucidtalk/embed/v4

There is a notable pro UI majority among those under 45 of 55% or so. This group are more likely to be from a nationalist background and presumably are more anti Brexit than older people like Tony Fearon.

I see a hard brexit has the UI vote at 45% not bad for lucid talk which often has support for UI at something ridiculous like 20%

This may cause some apprehension in some quarters. 45% and the age differences here mean 50% in 14 years.
If you were a unionist, then stopping Brexit might seem a wise move.

That would require a level of joined up, long term, rational thinking well beyond all unionist politicians.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 26, 2017, 11:46:16 AM
Bad Brexit, with undecided allocated

(http://cdn-03.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article36261772.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Border_poll.JPG)

The DUP said well in the worst possible scenario we still win, but they must be a bit concerned under it all.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2017, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on October 26, 2017, 12:30:01 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 26, 2017, 12:17:09 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on October 26, 2017, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 10:45:53 PM
The radio programme is here
https://embeds.audioboom.com/posts/6426244-listen-full-analysis-of-our-exclusive-border-poll-survey-with-lucidtalk/embed/v4

There is a notable pro UI majority among those under 45 of 55% or so. This group are more likely to be from a nationalist background and presumably are more anti Brexit than older people like Tony Fearon.

I see a hard brexit has the UI vote at 45% not bad for lucid talk which often has support for UI at something ridiculous like 20%

This may cause some apprehension in some quarters. 45% and the age differences here mean 50% in 14 years.
If you were a unionist, then stopping Brexit might seem a wise move.

That would require a level of joined up, long term, rational thinking well beyond all unionist politicians.
Britain is a failed entity. Britishness is lashed to Britain. Unionism is too. The political system is a mess. Neither the Tories nor Labour can overcome the toxic mess that is Brexit. Brexit is insane. The economy is a car crash. The UK is dependent on foreigners to keep the money going. there are very few payrises. Taxes are maybe 15% below spending. Thatcher basically broke the UK by introducing monetarism.
For the first time in maybe 600 years Ireland is doing better than the neighbours.

Unionism is trina cheile.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on October 26, 2017, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 26, 2017, 11:46:16 AM
Bad Brexit, with undecided allocated

(http://cdn-03.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article36261772.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Border_poll.JPG)

The DUP said well in the worst possible scenario we still win, but they must be a bit concerned under it all.

What % were the undecideds I wonder? Could be a very sizeable amount, surely enough to make up the gap on that graph (not that they'd all vote for UI).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 26, 2017, 03:28:23 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on October 26, 2017, 02:50:08 PM
What % were the undecideds I wonder? Could be a very sizeable amount, surely enough to make up the gap on that graph (not that they'd all vote for UI).

All these figures should be released tomorrow, but I think the undecideds were around 9%. If these mostly fell for a UI it would be close, but in reality they are more likely to favour the status quo first time out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 26, 2017, 03:38:21 PM
This argument continues to amuse me!

1.Dublin,does not want a United Ireland and 1.5m northerners whom they don't understand.

2.If Brexit is a disaster for the North,it is equally so for the Southern economy

In short it is not going to happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 26, 2017, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 26, 2017, 03:38:21 PM
This argument continues to amuse me!

1.Dublin,does not want a United Ireland and 1.5m northerners whom they don't understand.

I live in Dublin, people understand me fine.

Quote2.If Brexit is a disaster for the North,it is equally so for the Southern economy

It wouldn't be great, but it would come at tie of fast growth allowing the damage be repaired.

QuoteIn short it is not going to happen.

A United Ireland is inevitable, not sure about Brexit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 27, 2017, 01:29:10 PM
I note from statistics published yesterday (https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/4xu-NI-ASHE-Bulletin-2017.PDF) that the median salary for full time employees in the 6  counties is £25,999 and that if you earn over £45,000 you are in the top 10%.
Meanwhile the average salary in the 26 counties in 2016 was  €45,611. Now I know perfectly well that the median is not the average, but a 50% difference is notable and sterling is likely to drift down in the coming months.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on October 27, 2017, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 27, 2017, 01:29:10 PM
I note from statistics published yesterday (https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/4xu-NI-ASHE-Bulletin-2017.PDF) that the median salary for full time employees in the 6  counties is £25,999 and that if you earn over £45,000 you are in the top 10%.
Meanwhile the average salary in the 26 counties in 2016 was  €45,611. Now I know perfectly well that the median is not the average, but a 50% difference is notable and sterling is likely to drift down in the coming months.

Take Dublin out of that and it paints a much different picture!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 27, 2017, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 27, 2017, 01:29:10 PM
I note from statistics published yesterday (https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/4xu-NI-ASHE-Bulletin-2017.PDF) that the median salary for full time employees in the 6  counties is £25,999 and that if you earn over £45,000 you are in the top 10%.
Meanwhile the average salary in the 26 counties in 2016 was  €45,611. Now I know perfectly well that the median is not the average, but a 50% difference is notable and sterling is likely to drift down in the coming months.

Bernadette Devlin made a famous speech in Westminster in the early 70's. 

She told parliament: "There is no place in society for us, the ordinary 'peasants' of Northern Ireland . . . because we are the have-nots and they are the haves . . . The situation with which we are faced in Northern Ireland is one in which I feel I can no longer say to the people, 'Don't worry. Westminster is looking after you.' "

I had a very moral view when I was younger. I thought everybody cared. I think it's part of a Catholic upbringing, that idea of universal solidarity. That was a journey for me . . . I didn't think the government was bad. I genuinely thought they just didn't know and if I just went to London to tell them, people would say, 'Do you hear that young woman there? We need to do something about that.' But then I realised: the bastards, they do know and not only do they know, they don't see anything wrong with it."

The NI stateen was built on bigotry and key industries run by Protestants for Protestants. Now that model has collapsed. They should have done the decent thing from day 1. Catholics are just as good as chosen people.Now the UK economy itself is banjaxed.
It is a cluster f**k.  The Scots Irish term is Gregory Campbell , I believe.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on October 28, 2017, 12:28:16 AM
Quote from: screenexile on October 27, 2017, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 27, 2017, 01:29:10 PM
I note from statistics published yesterday (https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/4xu-NI-ASHE-Bulletin-2017.PDF) that the median salary for full time employees in the 6  counties is £25,999 and that if you earn over £45,000 you are in the top 10%.
Meanwhile the average salary in the 26 counties in 2016 was  €45,611. Now I know perfectly well that the median is not the average, but a 50% difference is notable and sterling is likely to drift down in the coming months.

Take Dublin out of that and it paints a much different picture!

Why would you take Dublin out of it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on October 28, 2017, 08:38:01 AM
Quote from: seafoid on October 27, 2017, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 27, 2017, 01:29:10 PM
I note from statistics published yesterday (https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/4xu-NI-ASHE-Bulletin-2017.PDF) that the median salary for full time employees in the 6  counties is £25,999 and that if you earn over £45,000 you are in the top 10%.
Meanwhile the average salary in the 26 counties in 2016 was  €45,611. Now I know perfectly well that the median is not the average, but a 50% difference is notable and sterling is likely to drift down in the coming months.

Bernadette Devlin made a famous speech in Westminster in the early 70's. 

She told parliament: "There is no place in society for us, the ordinary 'peasants' of Northern Ireland . . . because we are the have-nots and they are the haves . . . The situation with which we are faced in Northern Ireland is one in which I feel I can no longer say to the people, 'Don't worry. Westminster is looking after you.' "

I had a very moral view when I was younger. I thought everybody cared. I think it's part of a Catholic upbringing, that idea of universal solidarity. That was a journey for me . . . I didn't think the government was bad. I genuinely thought they just didn't know and if I just went to London to tell them, people would say, 'Do you hear that young woman there? We need to do something about that.' But then I realised: the b**tards, they do know and not only do they know, they don't see anything wrong with it."

The NI stateen was built on bigotry and key industries run by Protestants for Protestants. Now that model has collapsed. They should have done the decent thing from day 1. Catholics are just as good as chosen people.Now the UK economy itself is banjaxed.
It is a cluster f**k.  The Scots Irish term is Gregory Campbell , I believe.

She picked the wrong place to say it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 29, 2017, 07:52:51 AM
What a scorcher.

   https://www.ft.com/content/8f12afca-bb26-11e7-8c12-5661783e5589

"London will hold back the £1bn promised by Theresa May to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) as it moves to impose a budget on Northern Ireland, with hopes fading for a deal to restore the region's government.

After months of fruitless talks at Stormont near Belfast, a deepening schism over the Irish language has dimmed the prospect of a breakthrough in talks between the DUP and Sinn Féin.

   Sinn Féin wants an Irish language act to protect the rights of Irish-speakers in region but the DUP will support only a lesser form of recognition in broader cultural legislation that would also recognise Ulster Scots. "


Unionists are nuts. Asking for recognition of Ulster Scots is like asking for a relationship with a blow up doll to be formalised.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: stew on October 29, 2017, 08:14:33 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.

Tony you are more british than Finchley these days!

A United Ireland will be talked about until it comes about and nothing you nor you unionist buddies are able to do anything about that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 29, 2017, 08:35:48 AM
There is no longer a Unionist majority . This is very hard for Unionists to accept.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 29, 2017, 09:47:38 AM
Apparently the talks are going nowhere because of Arlene refusing to step aside for the cash for ash investigation, gay marriage and Gaeilge.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 29, 2017, 10:13:43 AM
Have they got around to discussing whether the earth is flat yet?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 29, 2017, 12:09:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 29, 2017, 09:47:38 AM
Apparently the talks are going nowhere because of Arlene refusing to step aside for the cash for ash investigation, gay marriage and Gaeilge.

Talks failure is just a long running strategy by Adams to continue the chaos in N.Ireland to build up resentment by all sections of society towards the GFA and make people believe that NI is ungovernable by the locals. Add to this Brexit and a hard border demand by unionism and SF ensures that conflict continues on a different level.

The talks situation could be settled in hours if the focus by both sides was on one matter, the use of the PoC.  If it could be reformed or replaced by a weighted majority vote on contentious issues away from social and cultural matters then the current assembly would vote through gay marriage and ILA immediately.  By not dealing with the PoC which both sides have abused for their own political ends, the situation rotates around matters that cannot be resolved outside the Assembly, i.e. no Assembly means no devolved matters being dealt with and gay marriage and ILA cannot be implemented. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 29, 2017, 12:33:00 PM
The Poc is cleary the problem, but I presume at this point it is more the DUP who wish to keep it as the unionists do not have a majority and never will again.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 02:58:48 PM
Stew,the greatest opposition to a United Ireland is to be found in Dublin,matched by a dwindling Unionist community.No point in wasting energy on something that's not going to happen.There is no talk about it,other than  from a handful of deluded loons (Ireland's equivalent of UKIP),far less a policy or strategy about delivering it.

If a United Ireland does ever come about,and I won't live to see it,it will be a bit like the ultimate Brexit,watered down so much that no one will notice any difference,a federal state with Stormont still in operation with two blocs still able to veto everything and as result no agreement on anything,the Freestate back in the Commonwealth and every Unionist grievance pandered to,in orderto keep them unalienatec.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on October 29, 2017, 03:31:49 PM
If McGuinness was still alive would powersharing be in place? I guess we'll never know, but I can't imagine this prolonged deadlock if he was still around.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 29, 2017, 03:53:20 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 02:58:48 PM
Stew,the greatest opposition to a United Ireland is to be found in Dublin,matched by a dwindling Unionist community.No point in wasting energy on something that's not going to happen.There is no talk about it,other than  from a handful of deluded loons (Ireland's equivalent of UKIP),far less a policy or strategy about delivering it.

If a United Ireland does ever come about,and I won't live to see it,it will be a bit like the ultimate Brexit,watered down so much that no one will notice any difference,a federal state with Stormont still in operation with two blocs still able to veto everything and as result no agreement on anything,the Freestate back in the Commonwealth and every Unionist grievance pandered to,in orderto keep them unalienatec.

Perhaps you can be given a job advising how best to pander to unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 29, 2017, 04:03:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 29, 2017, 12:33:00 PM
The Poc is cleary the problem, but I presume at this point it is more the DUP who wish to keep it as the unionists do not have a majority and never will again.
they might try to offload Tyrone and Fermanagh once Arlene goes
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.
The elephant in the room that only Brian Feeney and Alex Kane care to see, is that the majority of nationalists care not a fig should Stormont be closed for good. The DUP will not share power on a rights based footing, they see only one culture and way of life here and that is British. It must dominate and not an inch should be given to Irishness. This is the rock upon which the union will flounder.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on October 30, 2017, 11:13:29 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.
The elephant in the room that only Brian Feeney and Alex Kane care to see, is that the majority of nationalists care not a fig should Stormont be closed for good. The DUP will not share power on a rights based footing, they see only one culture and way of life here and that is British. It must dominate and not an inch should be given to Irishness. This is the rock upon which the union will flounder.

+1.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 30, 2017, 01:19:31 PM
The alternative is direct British Rule by a Tory/DUP alliance,hardly to the liking of SF.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 30, 2017, 01:30:50 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 30, 2017, 01:19:31 PM
The alternative is direct British Rule by a Tory/DUP alliance,hardly to the liking of SF.

it isn't difficult to see a change of government in London at this stage, given the antics of the present one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 30, 2017, 02:01:22 PM
British Rule is British Rule,whether administered by Tories or Labour
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 02:19:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 30, 2017, 01:19:31 PM
The alternative is direct British Rule by a Tory/DUP alliance,hardly to the liking of SF.
and that suits SF to a tee, they have a built in bogeyman and can play the protest card which neatly helps in the South.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 30, 2017, 02:55:52 PM
They seem to be fairly stuck on the 15% ghetto in "the South".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 30, 2017, 03:17:20 PM
SF will never get near power in the South.To go in as Junior coalition partners will be the final nail in the coffin.They may do better when Adams goes,but that will be as a result of a further chasm with the Northern wing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on October 30, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.
The elephant in the room that only Brian Feeney and Alex Kane care to see, is that the majority of nationalists care not a fig should Stormont be closed for good. The DUP will not share power on a rights based footing, they see only one culture and way of life here and that is British. It must dominate and not an inch should be given to Irishness. This is the rock upon which the union will flounder.

This.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 03:47:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 30, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.
The elephant in the room that only Brian Feeney and Alex Kane care to see, is that the majority of nationalists care not a fig should Stormont be closed for good. The DUP will not share power on a rights based footing, they see only one culture and way of life here and that is British. It must dominate and not an inch should be given to Irishness. This is the rock upon which the union will flounder.

This.
have you a point?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 30, 2017, 04:01:53 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 03:47:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 30, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.
The elephant in the room that only Brian Feeney and Alex Kane care to see, is that the majority of nationalists care not a fig should Stormont be closed for good. The DUP will not share power on a rights based footing, they see only one culture and way of life here and that is British. It must dominate and not an inch should be given to Irishness. This is the rock upon which the union will flounder.

This.
have you a point?

You already made the point, we agree with you. :)
All of this will be interesting to political scientists. A couple of years ago there was a sort of disinterested acceptance of Stormont. The disinterest led to a modest turnout of normal people in the election and the DUP did well. Hubris got the better of them and they went off on a solo run with Brexit, RHI, and cancelling the Irish language funding. People who were disinterested, or resigned, woke up. The DUP have failed to back themselves out their own hole and the whole idea of the present setup is now up for discussion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on October 30, 2017, 04:05:45 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 03:47:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 30, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.
The elephant in the room that only Brian Feeney and Alex Kane care to see, is that the majority of nationalists care not a fig should Stormont be closed for good. The DUP will not share power on a rights based footing, they see only one culture and way of life here and that is British. It must dominate and not an inch should be given to Irishness. This is the rock upon which the union will flounder.

This.
have you a point?

Yes, I agree with you!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on October 30, 2017, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 30, 2017, 01:19:31 PM
The alternative is direct British Rule by a Tory/DUP alliance,hardly to the liking of SF.
And that gives them someone to blame for the cuts. In Government they would have hard choices to make. Much easier to be a populist when you don't have to do something unpopular.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on October 30, 2017, 04:32:17 PM
But that brings us back to the unacceptable British Rule in the North the very thing SF demanded talks to end,in the mid 90s after the ceasefire.

Also it's hardly a votewinner if you run away from tough political decisions
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 30, 2017, 06:02:46 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on October 30, 2017, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 30, 2017, 01:19:31 PM
The alternative is direct British Rule by a Tory/DUP alliance,hardly to the liking of SF.
And that gives them someone to blame for the cuts. In Government they would have hard choices to make. Much easier to be a populist when you don't have to do something unpopular.

+1

SF is a populist party incapable of being part of any government that needs to take hard decisions for the best reasons and not political gain.  For example, it tore down Assembly so that it did not have to produce a budget that would embarrass it in the Dail, avoiding the hard decisions on health reforms where local hospitals will be closed or downgraded to produce the small number of specialist hospitals Bengoa report demanded, close the plethora of small schools across N.Ireland that are no longer viable and resolve the huge cost of school transport,  etc.

By not being in the N.Ireland assembly SF has provided FF and FG with electioneering focus of SF being a party that has failed to be part of a government and has no place in a Dail coalition.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 30, 2017, 07:03:08 PM
FG and FF would have to admit that they would not gave supported the Ila to d that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 31, 2017, 08:43:39 AM
Quote from: AQMP on October 30, 2017, 04:05:45 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 03:47:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on October 30, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 30, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 29, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
Surely it is SF that is obstructing government here,not Unionists,All for electoral gain in the South,like as if people in Dublin 4 are ever going to vote SF😂😂.

The very real risk here is the Direct Rule will lead to improved governance (wouldn't be hard to achieve) to the extent that people won't want devolution to ever return.I know of one Tory Minister in a previous Direct Rule era who is absolutely revered round the nationalist Newry South Down era,for all he achieved.

Then things settle down,Dublin wipes its forehead with a huge sigh of relief,Gerry retires and the gap between Northern SF and Southern SF widens,and a United Ireland is not even mentioned any more.
The elephant in the room that only Brian Feeney and Alex Kane care to see, is that the majority of nationalists care not a fig should Stormont be closed for good. The DUP will not share power on a rights based footing, they see only one culture and way of life here and that is British. It must dominate and not an inch should be given to Irishness. This is the rock upon which the union will flounder.

This.
have you a point?

Yes, I agree with you!
Ok sorry, just wondered what the this meant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 31, 2017, 08:45:51 AM
It is not just SF that are populist. All political parties on this Island given the small size of the voting population are populists by nature. They are also heavily influenced by events at their own parish pump.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 31, 2017, 09:06:24 AM
The idea that the 2 big southern parties are sophisticated is false. They know how to vote manage but have very little strategic sense. The FF Götterdämmerung in 2011 was fascinating  .

SF are a political party plus because they are aiming for a UI. It helps that the DUP leadership is pure fuckin usheless.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on October 31, 2017, 05:48:39 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 31, 2017, 09:06:24 AM
The idea that the 2 big southern parties are sophisticated is false. They know how to vote manage but have very little strategic sense. The FF Götterdämmerung in 2011 was fascinating  .

SF are a political party plus because they are aiming for a UI. It helps that the DUP leadership is pure fuckin usheless.

Finally someone has something positive to say about Sinn Fein. Someone earlier mentioned what were the benefits of the GFA, we only need to look at the current make-up of the university population in the north to see the benefits. We only need to look at Barra McGrory and his recent case against Unionist represemtatives, none of these changes happened without the GFA, and to a greater extent none of these happened without SF
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on October 31, 2017, 05:52:33 PM
QuoteTherealdonald
    Newbie
    *
    Posts: 1

What is your other username?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on October 31, 2017, 05:59:51 PM
New user actually. Was a ghost reader for a long time and really enjoyed the banter and to and fro'ing, so plucked up courage yesterday to register. Is that ok? Am I supposed to have two accounts? Do you?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on November 03, 2017, 08:44:48 AM
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/within-a-generation-of-irish-unity-unionists-will-have-found-their-place-1-8227328

Good article in the newsletter!
I nearly choked on my coffee when I started reading that it was a pro UI article in the newsletter. Apart from the excellent reporting on the RHI scandal by Sam McBride this paper is usually full of awfull bias garbage and even ignores uncomfortable news for its readers (eg the recent cantrell close nonsense) and replaces it with more comfortable generic articles such as its all themuns fault.
So fair play to them for once.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 03, 2017, 10:08:21 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 03, 2017, 08:44:48 AM
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/within-a-generation-of-irish-unity-unionists-will-have-found-their-place-1-8227328

Good article in the newsletter!
I nearly choked on my coffee when I started reading that it was a pro UI article in the newsletter. Apart from the excellent reporting on the RHI scandal by Sam McBride this paper is usually full of awfull bias garbage and even ignores uncomfortable news for its readers (eg the recent cantrell close nonsense) and replaces it with more comfortable generic articles such as its all themuns fault.
So fair play to them for once.

Perhaps a candidate for the What the F**k thread! No doubt they'll run 10 articles refuting this guy, but even so some reality is welcome.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on November 03, 2017, 11:21:37 AM
This process has very much began, SF in particular.

Surely of at least equal importance is those parties in the south undertaking the same analysis and outreach?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 03, 2017, 11:59:40 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Take a look around you, that's what it will look like. It's not like uniting with Spain.
What accommodation do you think they would lose in a UI?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 12:38:47 PM
What am I to look around at?
It's up to firstly the Nationalist parties in the North to spell out their vision.
As the Nationalist numbers increase those Parties will have to pressurise the Blueshirt and Builders/Auctioneers Parties to start focusing in on the future rather than the next stroke .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 03, 2017, 12:52:58 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 12:38:47 PM
What am I to look around at?
It's up to firstly the Nationalist parties in the North to spell out their vision.
As the Nationalist numbers increase those Parties will have to pressurise the Blueshirt and Builders/Auctioneers Parties to start focusing in on the future rather than the next stroke .

No it will be up to the Government of the time. I'd like to think there'd be consultation however.
This has already been agreed through the GFA which the Governments (which is now FG) have signed up to.

Not only that but the last thing they want is for SF to draw up the plan.

These demands for parties to spell out their plans are red herrings. OK for pub chat but are meaningless when it comes to implementing a UI.


Can you imagine it was happening tomorrow?
Varadkar and May going through their files to find the SF proposal for Unity and saying to their Ministers, 'right folks' heres the plan, get to work'.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 01:17:30 PM
You need to convince the unaligned and very soft "nationalists" to vote for an All Ireland outcome if "We" are to win a Referendum.
To do that parties need to be spelling out what their vision would be.
All the better if a modern day version of the  New Ireland Forum was set up to have some concensus.
Just saying "Vote for UI we'll work something out" = defeat in the vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 03, 2017, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 01:17:30 PM
You need to convince the unaligned and very soft "nationalists" to vote for an All Ireland outcome if "We" are to win a Referendum.
To do that parties need to be spelling out what their vision would be.
All the better if a modern day version of the  New Ireland Forum was set up to have some concensus.
Just saying "Vote for UI we'll work something out" = defeat in the vote.

Easy, put a sign on a bus saying 'Google, Apple, Facebook choose Ireland' and another saying 'Work or study anywhere in the EU' and yet more saying absolutely anything you want to say. As with Brexit and all other referendum it's claptrap.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on November 03, 2017, 02:27:48 PM
Oh dear. Why does anything think that Dublin wants the intractable problems of the North (parade disputes,political impasses,sectarianism etc),not even mentioning the substantial cost of taking the region on,if things were completely normal.I would say every leader in the South,from De Valera onwards,was on his knees every night thanking God it was the Brits who have to sort this out.

Add to this the utter impossibility of ever convincing unionists,regardless of how many sound arguments are presented,of the merits of a United Ireland,then realise this thread is a waste of cyberspace
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 02:31:27 PM
You don't have to convince a Unionist minority ,  try the Soft Nationalists and the unaligned first.
Ye of course could try to start paying ye're own way in the meantime ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 03, 2017, 02:51:46 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 03, 2017, 02:27:48 PM
Oh dear. Why does anything think that Dublin wants the intractable problems of the North (parade disputes,political impasses,sectarianism etc),not even mentioning the substantial cost of taking the region on,if things were completely normal.I would say every leader in the South,from De Valera onwards,was on his knees every night thanking God it was the Brits who have to sort this out.

Add to this the utter impossibility of ever convincing unionists,regardless of how many sound arguments are presented,of the merits of a United Ireland,then realise this thread is a waste of cyberspace

This has nothing to do with what they want.
That's not how it works.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 03, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 03, 2017, 02:27:48 PM
Oh dear. Why does anything think that Dublin wants the intractable problems of the North (parade disputes,political impasses,sectarianism etc),not even mentioning the substantial cost of taking the region on,if things were completely normal.I would say every leader in the South,from De Valera onwards,was on his knees every night thanking God it was the Brits who have to sort this out.

Add to this the utter impossibility of ever convincing unionists,regardless of how many sound arguments are presented,of the merits of a United Ireland,then realise this thread is a waste of cyberspace
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 03, 2017, 03:42:30 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on November 03, 2017, 12:52:58 PM
Not only that but the last thing they want is for SF to draw up the plan.

The last thing anyone wants is SF drawing up the plan, I'd sooner have Olly do the job.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 03, 2017, 03:50:04 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 03, 2017, 03:42:30 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on November 03, 2017, 12:52:58 PM
Not only that but the last thing they want is for SF to draw up the plan.

The last thing anyone wants is SF drawing up the plan, I'd sooner have Olly do the job.

Most people agree but they still keep asking them to do it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on November 03, 2017, 04:07:03 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?

No but two wrongs don't make a right, they should be accommodated (within reasonable boundaries) when a 32 county republic is established.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on November 03, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Reading on this thread makes me sick. We have actual GAA "supporters" outlining reasons why we shouldn't have a united ireland.when said aim of organisation was to promote a nationalist identity. Alls wring is that too many people live off far cheques from retiring from uk govt jobs. Turned a lot of you into what African-Americans call "Uncle Tom's" . I'd like to name all you naysayers "Uncle Mountbatten's" . Makes me sick to my stomach. We have the constant kicking of SF, and how they're not a political party. Well I can think of 20 SF members who literally laid their lives on the line for Catholics in the North so we could have a fair shot at life, name me a politician from either FF or FG who can say the same. You will all rue the day you didn't support SF when they're in the Dail and you're on the outside looking in.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: illdecide on November 03, 2017, 04:56:16 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on November 03, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Reading on this thread makes me sick. We have actual GAA "supporters" outlining reasons why we shouldn't have a united ireland.when said aim of organisation was to promote a nationalist identity. Alls wring is that too many people live off far cheques from retiring from uk govt jobs. Turned a lot of you into what African-Americans call "Uncle Tom's" . I'd like to name all you naysayers "Uncle Mountbatten's" . Makes me sick to my stomach. We have the constant kicking of SF, and how they're not a political party. Well I can think of 20 SF members who literally laid their lives on the line for Catholics in the North so we could have a fair shot at life, name me a politician from either FF or FG who can say the same. You will all rue the day you didn't support SF when they're in the Dail and you're on the outside looking in.

Yeaahhhhoooo...Tiocfáidh Ar La
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 04:58:40 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on November 03, 2017, 04:07:03 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?

No but two wrongs don't make a right, they should be accommodated (within reasonable boundaries) when a 32 county republic is established.
I trust Donald,  BennyCake and Valkeep will be kept well away from the campaign for a UI ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on November 03, 2017, 05:21:21 PM
We will be the leaders of the new republic Ross. And I can guarantee that all the fake nationalists with their fake news will well and truly be drowned in Louth neagh.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 04:58:40 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on November 03, 2017, 04:07:03 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?

No but two wrongs don't make a right, they should be accommodated (within reasonable boundaries) when a 32 county republic is established.
I trust Donald,  BennyCake and Valkeep will be kept well away from the campaign for a UI ::)

I'm not advocating unionists be treated horrendously, as Catholics were since partition. But we all know that there will be quite a few nationalists who will "go to town" if a UI was declared. They would do exactly what the unionists have done since partition, namely shoving everything Irish down unionists throats. And that's no way to begin as an independent ireland.

However, I don't see a UI happening so it's all irrelevant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on November 03, 2017, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 04:58:40 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on November 03, 2017, 04:07:03 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?

No but two wrongs don't make a right, they should be accommodated (within reasonable boundaries) when a 32 county republic is established.
I trust Donald,  BennyCake and Valkeep will be kept well away from the campaign for a UI ::)

I'm not advocating unionists be treated horrendously, as Catholics were since partition. But we all know that there will be quite a few nationalists who will "go to town" if a UI was declared. They would do exactly what the unionists have done since partition, namely shoving everything Irish down unionists throats. And that's no way to begin as an independent ireland.

However, I don't see a UI happening so it's all irrelevant.

Zero chance a Dublin government will bend over backwards to appease the unionists Christ nationalists north probably will get a better deal with the DUP at the mo lol
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 03, 2017, 10:07:33 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 03, 2017, 06:15:42 PM
Zero chance a Dublin government will bend over backwards to appease the unionists Christ nationalists north probably will get a better deal with the DUP at the mo lol

The problem is that the DUP types will only come up with whines and gripes and British this, British that. You need someone to make sure that unionists and the 6 counties were fully able to take part in things in a UI, not furthering around with flegs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on November 03, 2017, 10:21:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?

From Star Trek, Deep Space Nine (the most underrated Trek, BTW):

BASHIR: Whose side are you on?
SISKO: There's a difference between interrogation and torture.
BASHIR: The Alliance never made that distinction.
SISKO: But you should.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on November 03, 2017, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 03, 2017, 10:21:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?

From Star Trek, Deep Space Nine (the most underrated Trek, BTW):

BASHIR: Whose side are you on?
SISKO: There's a difference between interrogation and torture.
BASHIR: The Alliance never made that distinction.
SISKO: But you should.

Awesome Dr. Spock
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 10:56:22 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 03, 2017, 10:07:33 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 03, 2017, 06:15:42 PM
Zero chance a Dublin government will bend over backwards to appease the unionists Christ nationalists north probably will get a better deal with the DUP at the mo lol

The problem is that the DUP types will only come up with whines and gripes and British this, British that. You need someone to make sure that unionists and the 6 counties were fully able to take part in things in a UI, not furthering around with flegs.

But flegs is all they're interested in or identify with. Whenever they think their identity/culture is under threat, they react, eg. Fleg protest, twaddell, Drumcree etc. I can't imagine they'll take a UI lying down.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on November 04, 2017, 02:41:24 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 03, 2017, 02:27:48 PM
Oh dear. Why does anything think that Dublin wants the intractable problems of the North (parade disputes,political impasses,sectarianism etc),not even mentioning the substantial cost of taking the region on,if things were completely normal.I would say every leader in the South,from De Valera onwards,was on his knees every night thanking God it was the Brits who have to sort this out.

Add to this the utter impossibility of ever convincing unionists,regardless of how many sound arguments are presented,of the merits of a United Ireland,then realise this thread is a waste of cyberspace

Tony every time you post on this topic and many others you take your undereducated opinions with no basis in fact, no evidence, no data, no sense and no clue and attempt to pass this prejudices as "facts".
SPCA churned out many opinionated wankers in their day, but most of them have the grace to base those opinions upon something or indeed anything. You however do not, and have not, and moreover, will not.
Contribute something useful to the thread, float an idea perhaps, maybe even one of your own some day instead of trotted out bull shit you thought made sense when you heard it on Radio Ulster's phone in.
I have to say though, you are better placed than most to pontificate on wastes of cyberspace.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on November 04, 2017, 08:28:06 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on November 03, 2017, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 03, 2017, 10:21:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?

From Star Trek, Deep Space Nine (the most underrated Trek, BTW):

BASHIR: Whose side are you on?
SISKO: There's a difference between interrogation and torture.
BASHIR: The Alliance never made that distinction.
SISKO: But you should.

Awesome Dr. Spock

Spock isn't a doctor...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 04, 2017, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on November 03, 2017, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 03, 2017, 10:21:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 03, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
It would of course help in Nationalist parties had some vision as to what the new All Ireland entity would look like, how it would work and what proposals to accommodate those 6 Cos residents who consider themselves British.

Did unionist parties have any vision towards accommodating those in the 6 counties who considered themselves Irish, when partition happened? Or even now, nearly 100 years later?

From Star Trek, Deep Space Nine (the most underrated Trek, BTW):

BASHIR: Whose side are you on?
SISKO: There's a difference between interrogation and torture.
BASHIR: The Alliance never made that distinction.
SISKO: But you should.

Awesome Dr. Spock

Dr Spock was the author of The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care (1946) which sold 50 million by the time of Spock's death in 1998 and has been translated into 39 languages.  He had nothing to do with Star Trek on TV or movies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 04, 2017, 10:53:43 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on November 03, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Reading on this thread makes me sick. We have actual GAA "supporters" outlining reasons why we shouldn't have a united ireland.when said aim of organisation was to promote a nationalist identity. Alls wring is that too many people live off far cheques from retiring from uk govt jobs. Turned a lot of you into what African-Americans call "Uncle Tom's" . I'd like to name all you naysayers "Uncle Mountbatten's" . Makes me sick to my stomach. We have the constant kicking of SF, and how they're not a political party. Well I can think of 20 SF members who literally laid their lives on the line for Catholics in the North so we could have a fair shot at life, name me a politician from either FF or FG who can say the same. You will all rue the day you didn't support SF when they're in the Dail and you're on the outside looking in.

For all of my adult life I have had 'a fair shot at life'.  I have availed of free healthcare, free primary and secondary education and a funded third level education to primary degree level.  I have worked for 34 years and make a considerable contribution to society through always paying income tax and national insurance contributions and through my work I ensured that a considerable number of 'Catholics in the North had a fair shot at life'.  I have never relied on SF for any of these privileges that many across the world will never have and I never felt inclined to support any campaign of violence that has caused nothing but misery and grief for those who were victims of the violence from 1967 to date. So, SF and their associates have never done anything that has improved my life nor the public service that I provided for 34 years. I could give you plenty instances where they have made life worse for Catholic people over the last 40 years and particularly since they were given the opportunity to run the government of this region.

The people of Ireland votes overwhelmingly in 1998 to allow 6 counties to be governed by the UK government until a majority of the people in that region decided otherwise and the people of the 26 counties decided that they wanted the 6 counties to join them.  This vote denies any group continuing with or resorting to a campaign of violence any form of legitimacy to base their campaign on previous votes or elections or previous campaigns. 

A vote for a UI may occur within the next ten years and it will be decided by those in the middle ground in N.Ireland who you and your fellow travellers may term as "Uncle Tom's" or "Uncle Mountbatten's" from the security you seek in your Internet keyboard warrior anonymity and additional username. 

So, instead of claiming the moral and political high ground from the tiny mound where you have parked your tanks to assault the middle ground you and your mirror images within the DUP would be better considering how you can persuade the middle ground to shift in your directions.  As others have stated, the middle ground of the population between SF and DUP will decide the destiny of this tiny region when a border poll is eventually held. 

There are more middle ground potential voters in the non-voting section of our electorate than will be persuaded to turn out for SF or DUP in the sectarian head count that exists in elections in N.Ireland.  This section of the population have become disillusioned with sectarian politics as SF and DUP have dominated the elected Assembly.  Many live in areas where their preferred candidate will never be elected and they have stopped voting or see no point in casting a vote for a losing candidate.  Both DUP and SF in the last year have virtually maxed out their voting bases in the last assembly and Westminster elections.  SDLP, UUP, APNI and GP are unable to motivate former voters to come back to the ballot box and new voters to come out to vote because they are in decline and cannot as individual groupings hope to over turn the power block of DUP and SF.  SDLP, UUP and APNI carry too much baggage of the past despite SDLP and UUP being responsible for delivering the GFA for the eventual benefit of SF/DUP.  However, you can be sure that a border poll will be enough to motivate these people to make a return possibly for the first time since the GFA referendum in 1998.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on November 04, 2017, 11:41:17 AM
Owen,
Great post, well made points, and a position that is ignored or unreached by SF. I have a different view and a different Outlook for the future, but I thoroughly respect that position and the logic behind it.

I'd love to hear what you would see as key issues that would sway your opinion one way or another in a UI vote. I firmly agree with the view often stated here that just a UI will not sway the voters.

One thing I heard recently and would be interested in hearing your views on, was in the event of any change in the situation in the north that both communities would seek guarantees from the EU. The poi t was made that whatever was on the table or committed to by politicians was not credible, and the trust factor of the middle ground was so low that neither Dublin nor Westminster would commit or deliver on promises made.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 04, 2017, 12:28:31 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 04, 2017, 10:53:43 AM


For all of my adult life I have had 'a fair shot at life'.  I have availed of free healthcare, free primary and secondary education and a funded third level education to primary degree level.  I have worked for 34 years and make a considerable contribution to society through always paying income tax and national insurance contributions and through my work I ensured that a considerable number of 'Catholics in the North had a fair shot at life'.  I have never relied on SF for any of these privileges that many across the world will never have and I never felt inclined to support any campaign of violence that has caused nothing but misery and grief for those who were victims of the violence from 1967 to date. So, SF and their associates have never done anything that has improved my life nor the public service that I provided for 34 years. I could give you plenty instances where they have made life worse for Catholic people over the last 40 years and particularly since they were given the opportunity to run the government of this region.

The people of Ireland votes overwhelmingly in 1998 to allow 6 counties to be governed by the UK government until a majority of the people in that region decided otherwise and the people of the 26 counties decided that they wanted the 6 counties to join them.  This vote denies any group continuing with or resorting to a campaign of violence any form of legitimacy to base their campaign on previous votes or elections or previous campaigns. 

A vote for a UI may occur within the next ten years and it will be decided by those in the middle ground in N.Ireland who you and your fellow travellers may term as "Uncle Tom's" or "Uncle Mountbatten's" from the security you seek in your Internet keyboard warrior anonymity and additional username. 

So, instead of claiming the moral and political high ground from the tiny mound where you have parked your tanks to assault the middle ground you and your mirror images within the DUP would be better considering how you can persuade the middle ground to shift in your directions.  As others have stated, the middle ground of the population between SF and DUP will decide the destiny of this tiny region when a border poll is eventually held. 

There are more middle ground potential voters in the non-voting section of our electorate than will be persuaded to turn out for SF or DUP in the sectarian head count that exists in elections in N.Ireland.  This section of the population have become disillusioned with sectarian politics as SF and DUP have dominated the elected Assembly.  Many live in areas where their preferred candidate will never be elected and they have stopped voting or see no point in casting a vote for a losing candidate.  Both DUP and SF in the last year have virtually maxed out their voting bases in the last assembly and Westminster elections.  SDLP, UUP, APNI and GP are unable to motivate former voters to come back to the ballot box and new voters to come out to vote because they are in decline and cannot as individual groupings hope to over turn the power block of DUP and SF.  SDLP, UUP and APNI carry too much baggage of the past despite SDLP and UUP being responsible for delivering the GFA for the eventual benefit of SF/DUP.  However, you can be sure that a border poll will be enough to motivate these people to make a return possibly for the first time since the GFA referendum in 1998.

I think your 34 years in public service is probably the exception more than the rule. I'm happy for you but it may mean that exception forming your view, means you are not the middle ground. The middle ground are the SF and DUP voters. This might not sit well as I still hear them referred to the two extremes. Neither are extreme in the box that is the north but they form the middle of opinion in the north. They are a result of it.
When we are in a minority of opinion we will always claim to be a silent minority. There is nothing but the four walls we live in with people of the same experience than us to support that view. If I ask my family and friends they will tend to have the same view as me but that has no impact on reality. If I live in a house who are environmentally aware and it is a topic I like to discuss I will create a false sense of it's wider support. I will tell people that everyone I know is voting for the greens and actually believe it myself. Then there will be a poll and I'll tell everyone the polls are wrong.

A point that is flirted with often here but soon forgot is that the UI issue is not a SF or DUP issue. It is an Irish issue, the oldest Irish issue. It doesn't go away and there is nobody without an opinion. There is also no generation that has held the same opinion. As with all things of this size in terms of politics, it is not your or my demographic that will determine the majority view and result. It is the 30somethings who are old enough to be in the thick of life but young enough not to be fatigued by it.

It is the future generation that can look at this with no baggage, and a clear and stable present. There will be a logical debate at some time. I know that my generation can not win that debate now regardless of how right we might be. The debate now is still too emotional. However, as long as the debate continues it strengthens the possibility that a decision will eventually be made. It's when the debate stops it's truly lost.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trileacman on November 04, 2017, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 04, 2017, 10:53:43 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on November 03, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Reading on this thread makes me sick. We have actual GAA "supporters" outlining reasons why we shouldn't have a united ireland.when said aim of organisation was to promote a nationalist identity. Alls wring is that too many people live off far cheques from retiring from uk govt jobs. Turned a lot of you into what African-Americans call "Uncle Tom's" . I'd like to name all you naysayers "Uncle Mountbatten's" . Makes me sick to my stomach. We have the constant kicking of SF, and how they're not a political party. Well I can think of 20 SF members who literally laid their lives on the line for Catholics in the North so we could have a fair shot at life, name me a politician from either FF or FG who can say the same. You will all rue the day you didn't support SF when they're in the Dail and you're on the outside looking in.

For all of my adult life I have had 'a fair shot at life'.  I have availed of free healthcare, free primary and secondary education and a funded third level education to primary degree level.  I have worked for 34 years and make a considerable contribution to society through always paying income tax and national insurance contributions and through my work I ensured that a considerable number of 'Catholics in the North had a fair shot at life'.  I have never relied on SF for any of these privileges that many across the world will never have and I never felt inclined to support any campaign of violence that has caused nothing but misery and grief for those who were victims of the violence from 1967 to date. So, SF and their associates have never done anything that has improved my life nor the public service that I provided for 34 years. I could give you plenty instances where they have made life worse for Catholic people over the last 40 years and particularly since they were given the opportunity to run the government of this region.

The people of Ireland votes overwhelmingly in 1998 to allow 6 counties to be governed by the UK government until a majority of the people in that region decided otherwise and the people of the 26 counties decided that they wanted the 6 counties to join them.  This vote denies any group continuing with or resorting to a campaign of violence any form of legitimacy to base their campaign on previous votes or elections or previous campaigns. 

A vote for a UI may occur within the next ten years and it will be decided by those in the middle ground in N.Ireland who you and your fellow travellers may term as "Uncle Tom's" or "Uncle Mountbatten's" from the security you seek in your Internet keyboard warrior anonymity and additional username. 

So, instead of claiming the moral and political high ground from the tiny mound where you have parked your tanks to assault the middle ground you and your mirror images within the DUP would be better considering how you can persuade the middle ground to shift in your directions.  As others have stated, the middle ground of the population between SF and DUP will decide the destiny of this tiny region when a border poll is eventually held. 

There are more middle ground potential voters in the non-voting section of our electorate than will be persuaded to turn out for SF or DUP in the sectarian head count that exists in elections in N.Ireland.  This section of the population have become disillusioned with sectarian politics as SF and DUP have dominated the elected Assembly.  Many live in areas where their preferred candidate will never be elected and they have stopped voting or see no point in casting a vote for a losing candidate.  Both DUP and SF in the last year have virtually maxed out their voting bases in the last assembly and Westminster elections.  SDLP, UUP, APNI and GP are unable to motivate former voters to come back to the ballot box and new voters to come out to vote because they are in decline and cannot as individual groupings hope to over turn the power block of DUP and SF.  SDLP, UUP and APNI carry too much baggage of the past despite SDLP and UUP being responsible for delivering the GFA for the eventual benefit of SF/DUP.  However, you can be sure that a border poll will be enough to motivate these people to make a return possibly for the first time since the GFA referendum in 1998.

The first part of that is bang on. The second part is complete bollix. The northern electorate has been institutionalised from an early age into thinking that it's us V them and votes accordingly. Take the most devious, deceitful, embezzling arsehole you can find and stick a unionist rosette on him and he'll fly home in a Protestant ward. Take a raving, bigoted idiot fishwife and drape her in green and the catholics will line up to send her to Brussels. Sammy Wilson and Martina Anderson's repeated succes at the polls are clear examples of the vast swathes of oxygen thieves that masquerade as the voting public in Ni.

Ni is full of imbeciles with only a very small minority of them running for elected office.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 04, 2017, 01:56:50 PM
Quote from: heganboy on November 04, 2017, 11:41:17 AM
One thing I heard recently and would be interested in hearing your views on, was in the event of any change in the situation in the north that both communities would seek guarantees from the EU. The poi t was made that whatever was on the table or committed to by politicians was not credible, and the trust factor of the middle ground was so low that neither Dublin nor Westminster would commit or deliver on promises made.

The problem is that EU or the US or whoever cannot actually do anything, the British can do what they like.

Quote from: trileacman on November 04, 2017, 01:46:45 PMSammy Wilson and Martina Anderson's repeated success at the polls are clear examples of the vast swathes of oxygen thieves that masquerade as the voting public in Ni.

This the point, and SF' policy of continually rotating ministers and giving everyone, however useless, an equal share is a good example of this impoverishment.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on November 04, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
This middle ground voters deciding the North is balls.

That's like finding a few middle ground Catholics and trying to convert them into Muslims. Non-practising Catholics are still regarding as catholics, and most would still identify themselves as such. And the vast majority of middle ground unionists would never agree to a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 04, 2017, 03:51:24 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 04, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
This middle ground voters deciding the North is balls.

That's like finding a few middle ground Catholics and trying to convert them into Muslims. Non-practising Catholics are still regarding as catholics, and most would still identify themselves as such. And the vast majority of middle ground unionists would never agree to a UI.

However as shown by the Lucidtalk poll there is a possible majority for a UI among under 45s, and so in general in a few years. But half of these people think SF are clowns, so who is to lead progress on this matter?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 04, 2017, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 04, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
This middle ground voters deciding the North is balls.


Might be balls but it's a fact.
Around 44% voted  Unionist , 41 or 42% voted Nationalist in the 2 recent elections.
Neither have a majority.
How the other 14/16% vote in the Referendum decides.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on November 04, 2017, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 04, 2017, 03:51:24 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 04, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
This middle ground voters deciding the North is balls.

That's like finding a few middle ground Catholics and trying to convert them into Muslims. Non-practising Catholics are still regarding as catholics, and most would still identify themselves as such. And the vast majority of middle ground unionists would never agree to a UI.

However as shown by the Lucidtalk poll there is a possible majority for a UI among under 45s, and so in general in a few years. But half of these people think SF are clowns, so who is to lead progress on this matter?

Nobody.

No matter what Nationalist parties want, no matter how small, will never be agreed by unionists. And no unionist politican can be seen to budge an inch submitting to them. Any unionist politican that compromises on any issue, or dares to, doesn't last long and is ostracized. Thats the reality.

The only step towards a UI is a border poll in Britain. Unionists here need to hear that the vast majority in Britain don't not want them. Then we might get somewhere.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on November 04, 2017, 04:10:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 04, 2017, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 04, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
This middle ground voters deciding the North is balls.


Might be balls but it's a fact.
Around 44% voted  Unionist , 41 or 42% voted Nationalist in the 2 recent elections.
Neither have a majority.
How the other 14/16% vote in the Referendum decides.

Yes but one third of the population doesn't vote at all. So we don't know how they would vote in a border poll.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 04, 2017, 05:56:25 PM
We'll only know if they'll vote and how  if/when a poll is held.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 06, 2017, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: heganboy on November 04, 2017, 11:41:17 AM
Owen,
Great post, well made points, and a position that is ignored or unreached by SF. I have a different view and a different Outlook for the future, but I thoroughly respect that position and the logic behind it.

I'd love to hear what you would see as key issues that would sway your opinion one way or another in a UI vote. I firmly agree with the view often stated here that just a UI will not sway the voters.

One thing I heard recently and would be interested in hearing your views on, was in the event of any change in the situation in the north that both communities would seek guarantees from the EU. The poi t was made that whatever was on the table or committed to by politicians was not credible, and the trust factor of the middle ground was so low that neither Dublin nor Westminster would commit or deliver on promises made.

My greatest fear in a UI following a border poll is the violence that will ensue from the loyalist paramilitaries who have the capacity to engage in conflict on a scale and with a ferocity as greater as the IRA at the height of their powers.  They have the access to full trained members of the RUC and UDR who may be past active duty but who can train others to high levels.  While IRA violence and murder of mostly innocent people was horrendous, the type and nature of violence by loyalists had a depth that was rarely matched.  I would fear that loyalists could easily re-partition the 6 counties by falling back on the current polarisation on an East-West axis.  The current RoI government has little or no capacity to deal with inter-community violence on any scale.  Adams & Co had and possibly still have a false premise that when unionist/loyalist people are abandoned by Britain they will become Irish.  There was little chance of this happening during the last conflict and zero chance in any future move to a UI.  I don't want my children and grandchildren to live through a conflict worse than I experienced for 30 years.

Economic questions are also important and linked to that are questions in relation to health and the NHS.  We pay less tax that comparable people in RoI but our education, social care and health are completely free at the point of delivery.  RoI cannot match this at present and will be even less able to do so in a UI where it has to take fiscal responsibility for the six counties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 06, 2017, 09:02:40 PM
So that's one vote "we" can't count on :-\
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on November 06, 2017, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 06, 2017, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: heganboy on November 04, 2017, 11:41:17 AM
Owen,
Great post, well made points, and a position that is ignored or unreached by SF. I have a different view and a different Outlook for the future, but I thoroughly respect that position and the logic behind it.

I'd love to hear what you would see as key issues that would sway your opinion one way or another in a UI vote. I firmly agree with the view often stated here that just a UI will not sway the voters.

One thing I heard recently and would be interested in hearing your views on, was in the event of any change in the situation in the north that both communities would seek guarantees from the EU. The poi t was made that whatever was on the table or committed to by politicians was not credible, and the trust factor of the middle ground was so low that neither Dublin nor Westminster would commit or deliver on promises made.

My greatest fear in a UI following a border poll is the violence that will ensue from the loyalist paramilitaries who have the capacity to engage in conflict on a scale and with a ferocity as greater as the IRA at the height of their powers.  They have the access to full trained members of the RUC and UDR who may be past active duty but who can train others to high levels.  While IRA violence and murder of mostly innocent people was horrendous, the type and nature of violence by loyalists had a depth that was rarely matched.  I would fear that loyalists could easily re-partition the 6 counties by falling back on the current polarisation on an East-West axis.  The current RoI government has little or no capacity to deal with inter-community violence on any scale.  Adams & Co had and possibly still have a false premise that when unionist/loyalist people are abandoned by Britain they will become Irish.  There was little chance of this happening during the last conflict and zero chance in any future move to a UI.  I don't want my children and grandchildren to live through a conflict worse than I experienced for 30 years.

Economic questions are also important and linked to that are questions in relation to health and the NHS.  We pay less tax that comparable people in RoI but our education, social care and health are completely free at the point of delivery.  RoI cannot match this at present and will be even less able to do so in a UI where it has to take fiscal responsibility for the six counties.

Doubt there would be much of a loyalist response and if there was not only would there position look even more ridiculous but any nonsense would soon be crushed without the help from the state to keep them going. Talk of repartition is again nonsense. Look at the demographics of Belfast where exactly are you going to draw the new boundaries??? 2 free states one in north down and one in northeast antrim?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 06, 2017, 09:25:14 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 04, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
This middle ground voters deciding the North is balls.

That's like finding a few middle ground Catholics and trying to convert them into Muslims. Non-practising Catholics are still regarding as catholics, and most would still identify themselves as such. And the vast majority of middle ground unionists would never agree to a UI.

Quote from: trileacman
The first part of that is bang on. The second part is complete bollix. The northern electorate has been institutionalised from an early age into thinking that it's us V them and votes accordingly. Take the most devious, deceitful, embezzling arsehole you can find and stick a unionist rosette on him and he'll fly home in a Protestant ward. Take a raving, bigoted idiot fishwife and drape her in green and the catholics will line up to send her to Brussels. Sammy Wilson and Martina Anderson's repeated succes at the polls are clear examples of the vast swathes of oxygen thieves that masquerade as the voting public in Ni.

I have looked at the main elections over the last 20 years in terms of the votes to unionists and nationalists:

(https://i.imgur.com/7UGTF8I.jpg?2)

This information can be displayed in a graph:

(https://i.imgur.com/op9RHJV.jpg?2)

From this data it can be seen that both factions have maxed their votes especially in the latest demographic and the two elections held in 2017.

The last referendum that affected the constitutional situation in Ireland was the GFA referendum in 1998.  A vote of this importance drew a huge turnout of 81% which has never been repeated since then.  It would not be unreasonable to assume that a border poll would produce a similar turnout.  If such a turnout is applied to the current electorate then the magic target of 50% + 1 would be 503,294 which is well above the votes achieved by either unionists or nationalists.  Either side would then have to persuade those in the middle ground who have not turned out to vote in almost 20 years to vote with them and not the other side.

Unionists would need over 104,000 more votes than they have ever managed to achieve in 20 years and nationalists would need over 168,000 more votes than they have ever gathered in 20 years.

(https://i.imgur.com/k8fW3ny.jpg?2)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 06, 2017, 09:32:40 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 06, 2017, 08:53:23 PM
My greatest fear in a UI following a border poll is the violence that will ensue from the loyalist paramilitaries who have the capacity to engage in conflict on a scale and with a ferocity as greater as the IRA at the height of their powers.  They have the access to full trained members of the RUC and UDR who may be past active duty but who can train others to high levels.  While IRA violence and murder of mostly innocent people was horrendous, the type and nature of violence by loyalists had a depth that was rarely matched.  I would fear that loyalists could easily re-partition the 6 counties by falling back on the current polarisation on an East-West axis.  The current RoI government has little or no capacity to deal with inter-community violence on any scale.  Adams & Co had and possibly still have a false premise that when unionist/loyalist people are abandoned by Britain they will become Irish.  There was little chance of this happening during the last conflict and zero chance in any future move to a UI.  I don't want my children and grandchildren to live through a conflict worse than I experienced for 30 years.

A UI tomorrow would be rather precipitate, and other than Brexit driven does not seem likely. In 15 years time people will have got used to the idea. The UDR was not well trained, I'd be more concerned with input from regular troops than 75 year old ex UDR. THe irish government may have limited resources, but would not hesitate to ask for UN/EU assistance.
It is true that loyalist violence was more savage, but was not well organised without British help. What would they be aiming for? They could aim for a banustan, but the British would not want them and the North Down set would rather ensure a good deal than live in a UDA ruled Transdniestria.

QuoteEconomic questions are also important and linked to that are questions in relation to health and the NHS.  We pay less tax that comparable people in RoI but our education, social care and health are completely free at the point of delivery.  RoI cannot match this at present and will be even less able to do so in a UI where it has to take fiscal responsibility for the six counties.

The ROI government could easily remove any element of charges from first and second level education by increasing the third level fee to NI levels. The bulk of health expenditure is paid for by the State in the South and not all is paid in the North, the gap is not as great as you might think and is tending to close. There has to be a question over whether the present level of expenditure in NI will continue anyhow, as England will not continue to fund free prescriptions etc which they do not have themselves.

But I suppose the question is whether you want your children to be free citizens in their own prosperous country,  able to pay their own way,  or getting subsidies from English people who despise them.

QuoteEither side would then have to persuade those in the middle ground who have not turned out to vote in almost 20 years to vote with them and not the other side.

This is undoubtedly true.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on November 06, 2017, 10:01:55 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 04, 2017, 10:53:43 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on November 03, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Reading on this thread makes me sick. We have actual GAA "supporters" outlining reasons why we shouldn't have a united ireland.when said aim of organisation was to promote a nationalist identity. Alls wring is that too many people live off far cheques from retiring from uk govt jobs. Turned a lot of you into what African-Americans call "Uncle Tom's" . I'd like to name all you naysayers "Uncle Mountbatten's" . Makes me sick to my stomach. We have the constant kicking of SF, and how they're not a political party. Well I can think of 20 SF members who literally laid their lives on the line for Catholics in the North so we could have a fair shot at life, name me a politician from either FF or FG who can say the same. You will all rue the day you didn't support SF when they're in the Dail and you're on the outside looking in.

For all of my adult life I have had 'a fair shot at life'.  I have availed of free healthcare, free primary and secondary education and a funded third level education to primary degree level.  I have worked for 34 years and make a considerable contribution to society through always paying income tax and national insurance contributions and through my work I ensured that a considerable number of 'Catholics in the North had a fair shot at life'.  I have never relied on SF for any of these privileges that many across the world will never have and I never felt inclined to support any campaign of violence that has caused nothing but misery and grief for those who were victims of the violence from 1967 to date. So, SF and their associates have never done anything that has improved my life nor the public service that I provided for 34 years. I could give you plenty instances where they have made life worse for Catholic people over the last 40 years and particularly since they were given the opportunity to run the government of this region.

The people of Ireland votes overwhelmingly in 1998 to allow 6 counties to be governed by the UK government until a majority of the people in that region decided otherwise and the people of the 26 counties decided that they wanted the 6 counties to join them.  This vote denies any group continuing with or resorting to a campaign of violence any form of legitimacy to base their campaign on previous votes or elections or previous campaigns. 

A vote for a UI may occur within the next ten years and it will be decided by those in the middle ground in N.Ireland who you and your fellow travellers may term as "Uncle Tom's" or "Uncle Mountbatten's" from the security you seek in your Internet keyboard warrior anonymity and additional username. 

So, instead of claiming the moral and political high ground from the tiny mound where you have parked your tanks to assault the middle ground you and your mirror images within the DUP would be better considering how you can persuade the middle ground to shift in your directions.  As others have stated, the middle ground of the population between SF and DUP will decide the destiny of this tiny region when a border poll is eventually held. 

There are more middle ground potential voters in the non-voting section of our electorate than will be persuaded to turn out for SF or DUP in the sectarian head count that exists in elections in N.Ireland.  This section of the population have become disillusioned with sectarian politics as SF and DUP have dominated the elected Assembly.  Many live in areas where their preferred candidate will never be elected and they have stopped voting or see no point in casting a vote for a losing candidate.  Both DUP and SF in the last year have virtually maxed out their voting bases in the last assembly and Westminster elections.  SDLP, UUP, APNI and GP are unable to motivate former voters to come back to the ballot box and new voters to come out to vote because they are in decline and cannot as individual groupings hope to over turn the power block of DUP and SF.  SDLP, UUP and APNI carry too much baggage of the past despite SDLP and UUP being responsible for delivering the GFA for the eventual benefit of SF/DUP.  However, you can be sure that a border poll will be enough to motivate these people to make a return possibly for the first time since the GFA referendum in 1998.

Sorry I'm only seeing your response now Owen. I dont know where to start but I'll make a stab at it anyway:
1. You say you have worked for 34 years. Simple maths, you graduated at 23+34=57. So you graduated in 1983 sLay roughly? 2 years after the hunger strike....how many of your primary school class went to third level education (I'm assuming you went to a Catholic School)
2. You provided a public service but don't say where or in what arena? If you prepared Catholics for a fair shot at life, tell me are Catholics better prepared for it now in year 34 of your service or year 1?
3. You ask me to try and persuade a middle ground voter why they should vote for a United Ireland? If they are an Irishman or woman at all why would they need persuading?
4. I can call these middle ground voters whatever I like.Full stop.
5. You talk about the SDLP and UUP voters not being able to motivate the middle ground voters? They are too busy drinking Cointreau in the Kings Head talking about a great day they had at Down Royal whilst wishing that horrible twat O'Leary hadn't won the JN Chase.
5. And finally this point, if I choose to use a username or call middle of the ground voters as ''Uncle Mountbatten's" then I will.  make no apologies for my SF beliefs, but I won't listen to the nonsense that somehow SF should try and win over these middle of the road types, who in the 80's, 90's and 00's and now looked down their noses at them. Screw that. Have conviction and belief, dont bend for Rory McIlroy's....aim for Lowry's and Harrington's or Canning's. Go to the south and build up from there, because heaven knows it won't be hard.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on November 06, 2017, 11:24:59 PM
All this talk of the middle ground well isnt it interesting that the lucid talk poll found more alliance green and others voters want a UI than stay in the UK if a vote was tomorrow. The unionist security blanket ie the alliance voters etc will be pro status quo and save the day - well looks like brexit has fecked that plan right up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 06, 2017, 11:54:43 PM
But "we" still need to have a coherent blueprint of what the new All Ireland entity will look like to ensure the non aligned middle ground erstwhile don't take fright in the polling booth and say "feck it better to stick with the devil we know"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 07, 2017, 12:16:09 AM
We cant go wrong niw!!
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/a-united-ireland-inevitable-says-katie-hopkins-36295150.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 07, 2017, 02:25:49 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 06, 2017, 11:24:59 PM
All this talk of the middle ground well isnt it interesting that the lucid talk poll found more alliance green and others voters want a UI than stay in the UK if a vote was tomorrow. The unionist security blanket ie the alliance voters etc will be pro status quo and save the day - well looks like brexit has fecked that plan right up.

The main issue is that the border poll would at least match the GFA vote in getting a turnout in excess of 80%.  In such a situation, unionist would need to add 105,000 to their maximum vote to date and nationalists would need to add 169,000 votes to the max they attained in 2017.  To get these votes they will have to appeal to voters who have been turned off by the usual sectarian elections caused by the polarisation of DUP and SF electioneering.  APNI votes won't be enough to do this.  It is the higher turnout that makes the matter so different for all concerned.  Current non-voter who see little point in voting now particularly UUP and SDLP voters/supporters as both DUP and SDLP have maxed their votes at present.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 07, 2017, 02:55:22 PM
More on the Lucidtalk poll here
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/bill-white/irish-border-poll-sinn-fein-need-to-be-careful-plus-how-would-naomi-long-and-steven-agnew-vote-36297061.html

One problem is that people will only vote for a definite plan (unlike the English Brexit voters) and the unionists are trying to prevent discussion on such a plan.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 09, 2017, 04:33:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 07, 2017, 12:16:09 AM
We cant go wrong niw!!
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/a-united-ireland-inevitable-says-katie-hopkins-36295150.html

This Hopkins person was on the radio at lunchtime today. It is fairly clear that she and other Brexiteers are English nationalists who see NI as complicating their doing their own thing and who are happy to throw the unionists overboard on that basis.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 09, 2017, 04:41:38 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 09, 2017, 04:33:10 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 07, 2017, 12:16:09 AM
We cant go wrong niw!!
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/a-united-ireland-inevitable-says-katie-hopkins-36295150.html

This Hopkins person was on the radio at lunchtime today. It is fairly clear that she and other Brexiteers are English nationalists who see NI as complicating their doing their own thing and who are happy to throw the unionists overboard on that basis.
If the £9bn starts being discussed it won't matter how much plámásing Nigel Dodds does at Westminster.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 09, 2017, 11:52:54 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1109/918860-northern-irish-border-after-brexit/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on November 10, 2017, 02:52:32 AM
This is getting interesting especially given the upcoming EU meeting in December.

Under current circumstances and legislation, a border poll will be called when the secretary of state believes that the majority will vote for a united Ireland.

Also as it is now, the agreement states that public of the rest of the UK and the Republic do not have a say, they are bound by the vote in the north.

However if the UK goes with Brexit, there is a view that the GFA does not hold as the UK is not a partner within the EU, and the GFA becomes null and void. There is no precedent for what happens in that scenario, and whether there is still a requirement for a border poll to unite the country, or whether the UK parliament could enact a united Ireland without a poll.

The EU documents leaked today show that the EU will not accept a soft border, and that they require that the island remains part of the single market to avoid a hard border.

Hello pigeons, I'm a cat...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 11, 2017, 11:28:38 PM
Quote from: heganboy on November 10, 2017, 02:52:32 AM
This is getting interesting especially given the upcoming EU meeting in December.

Under current circumstances and legislation, a border poll will be called when the secretary of state believes that the majority will vote for a united Ireland.

Also as it is now, the agreement states that public of the rest of the UK and the Republic do not have a say, they are bound by the vote in the north.

However if the UK goes with Brexit, there is a view that the GFA does not hold as the UK is not a partner within the EU, and the GFA becomes null and void. There is no precedent for what happens in that scenario, and whether there is still a requirement for a border poll to unite the country, or whether the UK parliament could enact a united Ireland without a poll.


I believe this position has been tested in the UK supreme court shortly after the referendum and found that there is little or nothing in GFA which prevents Brexit and vice versa.

Quote

The EU documents leaked today show that the EU will not accept a soft border, and that they require that the island remains part of the single market to avoid a hard border.

Hello pigeons, I'm a cat...

Actually the EU and RoI are only asking that NI would have to agree to the rules of a customs union/single market scenario which would allow trade to continue north - south with no need for additional customs checks. `This amounts to about 100 regulations that businesses in NI would have to observe to ensure they complied with EU legislation instead of being free of such legislation in a Brexit situation.  Highly likely that a trade agreement negotiated between UK and EU will ensure that all of UK will continue to follow the EU regulations to prevent need for customs checks at Dover which would cripple UK trade if introduced.  It is the intention of uK government in its Brexit Bill to transfer all EU red tape to UK law outside EU.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on November 12, 2017, 12:02:48 AM
While it is possible that we could get a small majority in favour of a United Ireland we would still face the likelihood of a significant minorities who would support a violent response to any change
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 12, 2017, 12:19:37 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on November 12, 2017, 12:02:48 AM
While it is possible that we could get a small majority in favour of a United Ireland we would still face the likelihood of a significant minorities who would support a violent response to any change

Indeed. Which is why a steady approach is appropriate.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on November 12, 2017, 03:53:55 AM
Owen,
It's a good point, but as you see from today's double down, the requirement is that the north stays in the common market, same terms as isle of man are available...
And your "actually" paragraph seems to be you setting out the difference between remain in the single market and agreeing to remain in the single market?
The paper contains the most explicit expression yet by the EU that the only way to avoid a hard border is for the UK to remain in the customs union and the single market, or at least for Northern Ireland to remain within those structures.
So are you agreeing or disagreeing?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 12, 2017, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: heganboy on November 12, 2017, 03:53:55 AM
Owen,
It's a good point, but as you see from today's double down, the requirement is that the north stays in the common market, same terms as isle of man are available...
And your "actually" paragraph seems to be you setting out the difference between remain in the single market and agreeing to remain in the single market?
The paper contains the most explicit expression yet by the EU that the only way to avoid a hard border is for the UK to remain in the customs union and the single market, or at least for Northern Ireland to remain within those structures.
So are you agreeing or disagreeing?

From my reading from a number of sources there appears to be the opportunity for a typical NI fudge.  NI would not be part of the single market or customs union according to Brexit by UK but with a recognition that if NI was willing to retain all of the current and future regulations of EU single market then it could continue to trade freely with RoI and hence EU.  All of this is being resisted by DUP and by proxy the UK government.

The issue of where the border with UK sits is a major problem for unionists and UK government as the logic of the proposal is that it will occur at the sea and air ports on GB.  As expected unionists see this as a UI by the back door despite having the constitutional safeguard within the GFA.

The reality is that unionism really wants a return of the hard border to designate the territory that it wants to hold despite all claims that it wants no impediment.

However, the endgame for the UK government is a free trade deal with EU which would negate many of the problems of leaving the single market and will allow a new form of customs union for UK and EU.  Neither side can afford the trade shock of anything else.  Hence the UK wants to move the trade discussions before coming up with a solution to the Irish border.

Major issue for RoI hauliers will be the failure to negotiate a 'tunnel' through GB on their way to mainland Europe.  They cannot afford passing through two customs borders at either side of UK.  The longer sea route to the continent is much more expensive for haulage and if it becomes the main route then several Irish and GB ports will have to close due to lack of trade.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trentoneill15 on November 21, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
My view on things is to let the Scots have Antrim and Down then do a population swap, Catholics in east move west and Protestants in west move east, if that was done 300 years ago then there would have been no Troubles. There will never be a unified Irish people any other way, I just know that as a fact, any man with sense would see that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on November 21, 2017, 12:15:35 AM
Quote from: trentoneill15 on November 21, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
My view on things is to let the Scots have Antrim and Down then do a population swap, Catholics in east move west and Protestants in west move east, if that was done 300 years ago then there would have been no Troubles. There will never be a unified Irish people any other way, I just know that as a fact, any man with sense would see that.

And while they're swapping houses you could throw in a bit of wife swapping too, just as a sweetener and to spice things up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 21, 2017, 12:57:54 AM
Quote from: Orior on November 21, 2017, 12:15:35 AM
Quote from: trentoneill15 on November 21, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
My view on things is to let the Scots have Antrim and Down then do a population swap, Catholics in east move west and Protestants in west move east, if that was done 300 years ago then there would have been no Troubles. There will never be a unified Irish people any other way, I just know that as a fact, any man with sense would see that.

And while they're swapping houses you could throw in a bit of wife swapping too, just as a sweetener and to spice things up.

Do you live in the East or the West Orior?  You could be moved to Fermanagh and get Arlene Foster!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on November 21, 2017, 02:05:10 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 21, 2017, 12:57:54 AM
Quote from: Orior on November 21, 2017, 12:15:35 AM
Quote from: trentoneill15 on November 21, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
My view on things is to let the Scots have Antrim and Down then do a population swap, Catholics in east move west and Protestants in west move east, if that was done 300 years ago then there would have been no Troubles. There will never be a unified Irish people any other way, I just know that as a fact, any man with sense would see that.

And while they're swapping houses you could throw in a bit of wife swapping too, just as a sweetener and to spice things up.

Do you live in the East or the West Orior?  You could be moved to Fermanagh and get Arlene Foster!

Corrrrr!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 21, 2017, 08:27:05 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on November 12, 2017, 12:02:48 AM
While it is possible that we could get a small majority in favour of a United Ireland we would still face the likelihood of a significant minorities who would support a violent response to any change

Not without the support of British Security forces.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on November 21, 2017, 09:16:08 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 21, 2017, 12:57:54 AM
Quote from: Orior on November 21, 2017, 12:15:35 AM
Quote from: trentoneill15 on November 21, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
My view on things is to let the Scots have Antrim and Down then do a population swap, Catholics in east move west and Protestants in west move east, if that was done 300 years ago then there would have been no Troubles. There will never be a unified Irish people any other way, I just know that as a fact, any man with sense would see that.

And while they're swapping houses you could throw in a bit of wife swapping too, just as a sweetener and to spice things up.

Do you live in the East or the West Orior?  You could be moved to Fermanagh and get Arlene Foster!

(http://replygif.net/i/651.gif)

I live in East of Orior, East of Armagh, East of Ulster, West of Britain, West of the UK and West of Europe.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on November 23, 2017, 08:21:57 AM
Quote from: trentoneill15 on November 21, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
My view on things is to let the Scots have Antrim and Down then do a population swap, Catholics in east move west and Protestants in west move east, if that was done 300 years ago then there would have been no Troubles. There will never be a unified Irish people any other way, I just know that as a fact, any man with sense would see that.
Partitionist.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on November 23, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Maybe if we highlighted sensible use of public services such as patients from the Republic availing of cataract operations in Belfast people might see the advantages of a United country.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on November 23, 2017, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on November 23, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Maybe if we highlighted sensible use of public services such as patients from the Republic availing of cataract operations in Belfast people might see the advantages of a United country.

I believe there are some cross border health schemes already in, excuse the pun, operation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on November 23, 2017, 09:48:21 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on November 23, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Maybe if we highlighted sensible use of public services such as patients from the Republic availing of cataract operations in Belfast people might see the advantages of a United country.

Is the pun here intended too?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on November 23, 2017, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 23, 2017, 08:21:57 AM
Quote from: trentoneill15 on November 21, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
My view on things is to let the Scots have Antrim and Down then do a population swap, Catholics in east move west and Protestants in west move east, if that was done 300 years ago then there would have been no Troubles. There will never be a unified Irish people any other way, I just know that as a fact, any man with sense would see that.
Partitionist.

He has a point though.

As mad as it sounds, the only way to sort out a hellhole like this is some form of eugenics, ethnic cleansing on a mass scale, drive/force/conpensate Catholics South or Protestants to Britain. Any other way and it's just more of the same. I'm not advocating doing any of the above, but "compromise" clearly hasn't worked or never will.

I still reckon a big bare knuckle fight with the best 1000 people from each side, put them in a field somewhere and the winners keep the North. Mad yes, but Stormont obviously isn't the answer!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clarshack on November 23, 2017, 10:10:21 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 23, 2017, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 23, 2017, 08:21:57 AM
Quote from: trentoneill15 on November 21, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
My view on things is to let the Scots have Antrim and Down then do a population swap, Catholics in east move west and Protestants in west move east, if that was done 300 years ago then there would have been no Troubles. There will never be a unified Irish people any other way, I just know that as a fact, any man with sense would see that.
Partitionist.

He has a point though.

As mad as it sounds, the only way to sort out a hellhole like this is some form of eugenics, ethnic cleansing on a mass scale, drive/force/conpensate Catholics South or Protestants to Britain. Any other way and it's just more of the same. I'm not advocating doing any of the above, but "compromise" clearly hasn't worked or never will.

I still reckon a big bare knuckle fight with the best 1000 people from each side, put them in a field somewhere and the winners keep the North. Mad yes, but Stormont obviously isn't the answer!

we would win with all the travellers on our side!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on November 23, 2017, 06:29:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 23, 2017, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on November 23, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Maybe if we highlighted sensible use of public services such as patients from the Republic availing of cataract operations in Belfast people might see the advantages of a United country.

I believe there are some cross border health schemes already in, excuse the pun, operation.

There are plenty of examples across many areas where a 32 county approach is proving better but no party seems to want to highlight the positives
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Bord na Mona man on December 05, 2017, 01:18:24 PM
Interesting stats from McWilliams. It wasn't too many years ago when Ian Óg Paisley was sneering about not wanting the South's potholed roads.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/12/05/northern-ireland-and-the-trip-advisor-index-of-economic-vibrancy

Quote
In 1920, 80 per cent of the industrial output of the entire island came from the three counties around Belfast. Belfast was the biggest city in Ireland in 1911, larger than Dublin, and was home to Ireland's innovation and technology.

At partition, the North was industrial and rich, the South agricultural and poor. Fast-forward to now, and the contrast couldn't be greater. The collapse of the Northern Ireland economy compared with that of the Republic has been unprecedented. East and West Germany come to mind.

Economically, the Union has enfeebled the North while independence has enriched the South – particularly since the peace process. Commercially, there was a huge peace dividend, but it went south.

The Republic's economy is four times larger, generated by a work force that is only two and a half times bigger. The Republic's industrial output is today 10 times that of the North. Exports from the Republic are 17 times greater than those from Northern Ireland, and average income per head in the Republic, at €39,873, dwarfs the €23,700 across the Border.

Immigration is a traditional indicator of economic vitality. In the Republic, one in six people are immigrants, the corresponding figure for the North is one in a hundred.

Dublin is three times bigger than Belfast, far more cosmopolitan, and home to hundreds of international companies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: illdecide on December 05, 2017, 02:50:11 PM
Ha, they done that for Craigavon in early 70's...offered them money to move there from Belfast. The British Government should offer all the Prods money to move to England/Scotland and everyone's happy. That's Brexit sorted...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on December 05, 2017, 01:18:24 PM
Interesting stats from McWilliams. It wasn't too many years ago when Ian Óg Paisley was sneering about not wanting the South's potholed roads.

Indeed I recall John "indian" Taylor about 25 years ago sneering on a panel about the lack of motorways in the 26 counties. Now the 26 counties has 10 times the motorway length of the wee 6.

Quote from: illdecide on December 05, 2017, 02:50:11 PM
Ha, they done that for Craigavon in early 70's...offered them money to move there from Belfast. The British Government should offer all the Prods money to move to England/Scotland and everyone's happy. That's Brexit sorted...

Moving them to Scotland would secure the Union. The poor people of Scotland might never forgive either us or England for doing this though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 05, 2017, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: illdecide on December 05, 2017, 02:50:11 PM
Ha, they done that for Craigavon in early 70's...offered them money to move there from Belfast. The British Government should offer all the Prods money to move to England/Scotland and everyone's happy. That's Brexit sorted...

As mad as it sounds, I agree. Compensation costs for all unionists would probably be less than running this current sectarian hellhole for the next few decades.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: magpie seanie on December 05, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
The old republican mantra about it not being those who can inflict the most but those that can endure the most who will conquer will be borne out in the 6 counties and beyond. McWilliam's article is good but Brexit, the DUP and the Tories have brought the prospect of a United Ireland forward more than anything in the last 90 years bar possibly the GFA. Exciting times.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 05, 2017, 04:26:23 PM
Indeed they have.
Remember a few years ago Robinson saying the DUP should start wooing Catholics ;D
They didn't exactly go about that in the right way.....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on December 05, 2017, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on December 05, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
The old republican mantra about it not being those who can inflict the most but those that can endure the most who will conquer will be borne out in the 6 counties and beyond. McWilliam's article is good but Brexit, the DUP and the Tories have brought the prospect of a United Ireland forward more than anything in the last 90 years bar possibly the GFA. Exciting times.

for the first time in my life I can feel confident that a united Ireland will happen,
brexit and the DUP has ended any  hopes for a shared future.
when the bit came to the bit the DUP were unmasked as blinkered and bigoted
next decade will be fascinating watching their majority fall
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 05, 2017, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on December 05, 2017, 01:18:24 PM
Interesting stats from McWilliams. It wasn't too many years ago when Ian Óg Paisley was sneering about not wanting the South's potholed roads.

Indeed I recall John "indian" Taylor about 25 years ago sneering on a panel about the lack of motorways in the 26 counties. Now the 26 counties has 10 times the motorway length of the wee 6.

Quote from: illdecide on December 05, 2017, 02:50:11 PM
Ha, they done that for Craigavon in early 70's...offered them money to move there from Belfast. The British Government should offer all the Prods money to move to England/Scotland and everyone's happy. That's Brexit sorted...

Moving them to Scotland would secure the Union. The poor people of Scotland might never forgive either us or England for doing this though.

Indeed. Considering the original Planters, the bane of our history, were the absolute dregs of lowland Scottish society and that country was delighted to get rid of them, it would be a nightmare for them. Imagine the effect in Shortbread land of the absolute scummery of Scottish loyalism being reinforced by a deluge of their equally bigoted cousins from here. Doesn't bear thinking about
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 06:02:52 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/49-of-republic-of-ireland-voters-back-united-ireland-36380704.html

It's not looking too good
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on December 05, 2017, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 06:02:52 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/49-of-republic-of-ireland-voters-back-united-ireland-36380704.html

It's not looking too good

The 57% who worried about violence if the border is re-introduced are thinking ahead.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hardy on December 05, 2017, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: illdecide on December 05, 2017, 02:50:11 PM
Ha, they done that for Craigavon in early 70's...offered them money to move there from Belfast. The British Government should offer all the Prods money to move to England/Scotland and everyone's happy. That's Brexit sorted...

Moving them to Scotland would secure the Union. The poor people of Scotland might never forgive either us or England for doing this though.

This is the sort of stuff that's designed to encourage them to engage in the conversation about a shared future?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on December 05, 2017, 07:06:34 PM
There is no capacity for a shared future with the DUP. Going by your pic youre a southerner, come up and live with us and let us know how we can share a future with these people.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 08:06:56 PM
There is a very interesting thread on Slugger to the effect that all of this will eventually drive the middle ground voters away from the union and towards  a UI.
This is written by an Alliance guy, who wasn't much bothered until recently but who is now thinking about things and his mates likewise.

A good quote
"If the centre ground continues to be squeezed, there's only one other way this is going to go. It ends on a rainswept afternoon at Hillsborough Castle. With a slate-grey sky in the background, the diplomatic corps and representatives of the royal family and the Government are sitting behind an immaculately turned-out band playing Nimrod, then God Save the King, before lowering and folding the Flag for the last time. Sitting to the side, the invited Unionist politicians will be left watching in disbelief and wondering – as they did in the years following the signing of the Anglo Irish Agreement – if these few cheap concessions would really have been that hard to make. Where did it all go wrong?"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

Unionists are not in the majority, their proportion of the population drops by 0.3% per annum.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 05, 2017, 09:51:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

You must not have actually read the article. The blogger in question is not fantasising about a United Ireland, in fact he is an Alliance party member, the party with which your own views are most closely aligned.

Of course the Unionists want to resist it but whatever chance they have had of attracting the middle ground will not have been helped with their behaviour of the last 18 months. They will always retain a significant minority of 'never never' voters who they can rely on by whipping up fear, hate and paranoia but the tide has turned dramatically in a short space of time since Brexit. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:52:08 PM
Dublin and the population of the South do not want a united ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 05, 2017, 09:54:42 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

50% +1, then they can suck it up whatever way they want
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on December 05, 2017, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

Unionists are not in the majority, their proportion of the population drops by 0.3% per annum.
Be higher too if you  could re-patriate them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 05, 2017, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 05, 2017, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

Unionists are not in the majority, their proportion of the population drops by 0.3% per annum.
Be higher too if you  could re-patriate them.

Unionists/Protestants/Planters have been here long enough that they are now fully Irish and there is nowhere to repatriate them to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on December 05, 2017, 10:09:42 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on December 05, 2017, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 05, 2017, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

Unionists are not in the majority, their proportion of the population drops by 0.3% per annum.
Be higher too if you  could re-patriate them.

Unionists/Protestants/Planters have been here long enough that they are now fully Irish and there is nowhere to repatriate them to.
Interesting how posters here have brought up the idea of the re-patriation of Unionists / Protestants in Ulster.  The same people also claim that bigotry is a one way street.  What's the difference between Irish Nationalsists / Catholics bringing up the idea of re-patriation and far right fascists in Great Britain making the same suggestion for ethnic minorities to be "sent home"?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on December 05, 2017, 10:12:45 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 05, 2017, 10:09:42 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on December 05, 2017, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 05, 2017, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

Unionists are not in the majority, their proportion of the population drops by 0.3% per annum.
Be higher too if you  could re-patriate them.

Unionists/Protestants/Planters have been here long enough that they are now fully Irish and there is nowhere to repatriate them to.
Interesting how posters here have brought up the idea of the re-patriation of Unionists / Protestants in Ulster.  The same people also claim that bigotry is a one way street.  What's the difference between Irish Nationalsists / Catholics bringing up the idea of re-patriation and far right fascists in Great Britain making the same suggestion for ethnic minorities to be "sent home"?

Ethnic minorities aren't dictating the day to day terms of life in GB. Protestants do dictate in the North.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 05, 2017, 10:24:25 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

Which is also why they'll never agree to a UI. Even if they're crawling in the gutter, rather the British gutter than an Irish paradise.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 05, 2017, 10:33:32 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 05, 2017, 10:09:42 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on December 05, 2017, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 05, 2017, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

Unionists are not in the majority, their proportion of the population drops by 0.3% per annum.
Be higher too if you  could re-patriate them.

Unionists/Protestants/Planters have been here long enough that they are now fully Irish and there is nowhere to repatriate them to.
Interesting how posters here have brought up the idea of the re-patriation of Unionists / Protestants in Ulster.  The same people also claim that bigotry is a one way street.  What's the difference between Irish Nationalsists / Catholics bringing up the idea of re-patriation and far right fascists in Great Britain making the same suggestion for ethnic minorities to be "sent home"?

I noticed it but I'll think you'll find that the vast majority of nationalists have enough common sense to see it as stupidity. There is no point in treating unionists as nationalists were treated when nationalists finally gain ascendancy. They need to be convinced with rational economic and political arguments that they have nothing to fear from a UI - indeed, that it will be beneficial to them. The problem is that many unionists have blindfolds on so thick that they live in a state of constant darkness, devoid of rationality or fact. Their rulers play the orange card and working class unionists take to the streets to defend themselves from Catholics, all the while it's simply a ruse to keep Sammy, Arlene and co in power.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 10:40:46 PM
I would contend that the same tribal instincts are played on the nationalist side.Identity is precious.On the face of it,for decades attachment to the UK brought economic benefits to the North that the South could only dream of.Did that make Catholics value and prefer the Union? No.

In the highly unlikely event that a UI will come about it will be on the current basis,regional governments,with Stormont in place and the accompanying veto and opt outs.

Dublin does not want nor can it afford nearly 2m extra people a million of which will be disgruntled.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on December 05, 2017, 11:27:21 PM
Tony,
You keep stating your opinions as facts.

Dublin does not want nor can it afford nearly 2m extra people a million of which will be disgruntled.

No part of this is in any way shape or form anything other than your misguided conjecture.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 02 on December 05, 2017, 11:34:40 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 05, 2017, 10:24:25 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.

Which is also why they'll never agree to a UI. Even if they're crawling in the gutter, rather the British gutter than an Irish paradise.

It doesn't matter whether they agree to it, their day is over, enjoy the gutter.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 06, 2017, 04:33:33 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 09:19:00 PM
So one guy fantasises about a United Ireland and it's going to happen? Maybe its because I'm from Portadown that it makes it easy for me to realise the depth of Unionist feeling and determination to resist a United Ireland,and know it's never going to happen.

They see themselves as more British than the British themselves.If Brexit makes the people of Britain starve,Unionists will be happy to starve with them to prove they are equally British.
And that is exactly the rock on which unionism is perishing, it prevents them from making any concession to nationalists. The more a nationalist majority looms the more they will retreat.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on December 06, 2017, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 06:02:52 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/49-of-republic-of-ireland-voters-back-united-ireland-36380704.html

It's not looking too good

If you read past the headline, the trend is up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on December 06, 2017, 04:49:11 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 05, 2017, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 05, 2017, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: illdecide on December 05, 2017, 02:50:11 PM
Ha, they done that for Craigavon in early 70's...offered them money to move there from Belfast. The British Government should offer all the Prods money to move to England/Scotland and everyone's happy. That's Brexit sorted...

Moving them to Scotland would secure the Union. The poor people of Scotland might never forgive either us or England for doing this though.

This is the sort of stuff that's designed to encourage them to engage in the conversation about a shared future?

Hardy, while I don't agree with the poster's views about moving people to Scotland, conversations about a shared future in the North are a waste of breath.  They will become worthwhile when a significant number of Unionists buy into the idea of a shared future.  There just aren't enough of them who actually want it at the moment.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 05:06:37 PM
There can be no shared future when one community owes allegiance to Britain and the other to Ireland.Only when these two obsolete ideologies are abandoned and the communities merge to have a common outlook,can a shared future come on to the horizon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 06, 2017, 05:27:17 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 05:06:37 PM
There can be no shared future when one community owes allegiance to Britain and the other to Ireland.Only when these two obsolete ideologies are abandoned and the communities merge to have a common outlook,can a shared future come on to the horizon.

Hear that noise outside, that's a squadron of pigs flying over Portadown
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: mrhardyannual on December 06, 2017, 05:31:53 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 05:06:37 PM
There can be no shared future when one community owes allegiance to Britain and the other to Ireland.Only when these two obsolete ideologies are abandoned and the communities merge to have a common outlook,can a shared future come on to the horizon.
Both communities are members of the EU......does that help?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on December 06, 2017, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 05, 2017, 10:40:46 PM
I would contend that the same tribal instincts are played on the nationalist side.Identity is precious.On the face of it,for decades attachment to the UK brought economic benefits to the North that the South could only dream of.Did that make Catholics value and prefer the Union? No.

In the highly unlikely event that a UI will come about it will be on the current basis,regional governments,with Stormont in place and the accompanying veto and opt outs.

Dublin does not want nor can it afford nearly 2m extra people a million of which will be disgruntled.

The north may have been relatively prosperous compared to the south, but Catholics were subject to institutional discrimination in all walks of life. Plus, the very people subjected to second--class citizenship were the same, first and second generation who were left behind in a statelet to which they had no allegiance. Unless you're proposing that the same treatment would be reciprocated against unionists in a united Ireland which would be created with unionist consent and design, then the comparison isn't valid.

Of course, convincing them that they wouldn't suffer the same fate they inflicted is another matter, especially when political fortunes depend on just such fear mongering.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:03:32 PM
Absolute bullshit.Catholic and Protestant professional classes always  lived together in the leafy suburbs,even in Portadown.I spent my early years in the Killicomaine Housing estate,mixed then,but now a loyalist enclave,in the same housing conditions as many Protestants.My parents,both born in the 1920s,were never once out of work,and enjoyed or suffered the same terms and conditions as their fellow,vastly predominantly Protestant work colleagues.

The access to free education introduced by the British Labour Party post WWII benefitted Catholics far more than Protestants and led to the educated civil rights leaders like Hume,Bernadette Devlin, and Mc Cann etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on December 06, 2017, 06:11:26 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:03:32 PM
Absolute bullshit.Catholic and Protestant professional classes always  lived together in the leafy suburbs,even in Portadown.I spent my early years in the Killicomaine Housing estate,mixed then,but now a loyalist enclave,in the same housing conditions as many Protestants.My parents,both born in the 1920s,were never once out of work,and enjoyed or suffered the same terms and conditions as their fellow,vastly predominantly Protestant work colleagues.

The access to free education introduced by the British Labour Party post WWII benefitted Catholics far more than Protestants and led to the educated civil rights leaders like Hume,Bernadette Devlin, and Mc Cann etc.
Absolute bullshit?  So this better education led to these well educated types you listed to take up civil rights issues when none existed?  :o   ;D Seriously where do you pull this drivel from?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination,but it was exaggerated,as my own family experiences in Portadown.It certainly didn't impact at all on the catholic middle classes.Without access to free education,those who brought about radical change,like Hume,Devlin etc would never have emerged
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 02 on December 06, 2017, 06:35:50 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination,but it was exaggerated,as my own family experiences in Portadown.It certainly didn't impact at all on the catholic middle classes.Without access to free education,those who brought about radical change,like Hume,Devlin etc would never have emerged

I know I shouldn't as looking for attention but to generalise from your family's situation to the entire population is silly, unemployment rates for Catholics in the 1983 Household survey were 2.5 times worse than for protestants, so really exaggerated (and this 16 years after the civil rights movement started).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:43:30 PM
1983? That was nearly 40 years ago.We are talking here about unskilled labour or potential labour,many of whom probably didn't want to work.The discrimination was bad but not nearly as bad as myth would have it,and the professional classes never suffered one iota.Compare this with the South at the time with no welfare state and many families and communities decimated by enforced economic emigration.

The Unionist big house rulers of the 20th century treated Shankhill Protestant working classes etc with the utmost contempt.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 06, 2017, 07:32:28 PM
Jasus now he's telling us we had no social welfare here in 1983 :-\
And is he implying that Northern Catholics were too lazy to work?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 09:09:50 PM
I wouldn't expect you to understand but a lot of households with large families up here attracted benefit levels that made employment not worthwhile.Those large families were invariably catholic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dougal Maguire on December 06, 2017, 09:20:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination,but it was exaggerated,as my own family experiences in Portadown.It certainly didn't impact at all on the catholic middle classes.Without access to free education,those who brought about radical change,like Hume,Devlin etc would never have emerged
Yeah?  Tell that to Catholics looking for Council houses.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 06, 2017, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination,but it was exaggerated,as my own family experiences in Portadown.It certainly didn't impact at all on the catholic middle classes.Without access to free education,those who brought about radical change,like Hume,Devlin etc would never have emerged

I think you will find that Paddy Devlin didn't avail of much of the free education, he was born in 1925 and free education at secondary level didn't become available until 1947.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 06, 2017, 09:53:02 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination,but it was exaggerated,as my own family experiences in Portadown.It certainly didn't impact at all on the catholic middle classes.Without access to free education,those who brought about radical change,like Hume,Devlin etc would never have emerged
If it was all tickety boo the NI state would not have collapsed into inter communal violence in the late 60s  . The Unionists could have been decent but it always was less attractive than the status quo.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 06, 2017, 09:58:47 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination,but it was exaggerated,as my own family experiences in Portadown.It certainly didn't impact at all on the catholic middle classes.Without access to free education,those who brought about radical change,like Hume,Devlin etc would never have emerged

This is the mantra of unionism used to try and blame one side for the last 40 years. I'm saddened, but not surprised, that you are also repeating this bullshit, especially being from Portadown, whose nationalist population suffered more than many under the loyalist jackboot.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 10:10:19 PM
Look,ffs,my parents both left school at 14,with no qualifications.They were never unemployed in their lives.We lived in Portadown,a town that was entirely mixed until the troubles/IRA campaign started  (which were unnecessary according to the SDLP and all Freestate parties) drove people into sectarian housing,and the driving out was done on both sides.We never had a moment's trouble with anyone of a different religion,and up to 1990 we lived in predominantly Protestant neighbourhoods.Courtesy of British funded education myself and late brother (who would,despite coming from a very low socio economic background,become a GP),both attained third level education and social mobility my parents could only dream of.

We were nothing special,we worked hard to avail of all opportunities,and sacrifices made by our parents,which everyone else had.So forgive me for not feeling deprived or discriminated against.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 06, 2017, 10:29:17 PM
Not all were as lucky as your parents, T.

Heard the story many times Catholics going for jobs. What school/Sunday school did you go to? St Patrick's, Sacred Heart... We'll let you know. Catholics were abused by the system. Generation after generation in dirty filthy low paid jobs (if lucky), their children the same. No chance for bettering themselves. Protestant Sammy's snottery-arsed son get a job ahead of a hardworking catholic man with a family. Many who did get jobs suffered serious sectarian abuse. It was pure rotten. And that's just employment.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
I don't believe it was half as bad as it was made out.There were a lot of people like the proverbial stammerer who failed to get a newsreader's job and attributed it to being a Catholic.I know people who attribute all of their lifelong misfortunes to the fact that they were Catholics,ffs.My parents were never lucky,they were typical of their era,hard working,not ambitious,decent and honest as the day is long,and simply hopeful that their two boys would make the most of opportunities they never had.Now if that could all be done in "Black" Portadown it could have been done anywhere by any Catholic.

And I'm not even going to mention the Catholics born with the silver spoons in their mouths that lived well away from the riff raff Catholics and Protestants of the Lower Order.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dougal Maguire on December 06, 2017, 10:47:40 PM
So why is it only n recent years that Catholics made it to the top in the Civil Service. I know you're a wind up merchant but the extremes you'll go to get an arguement going are unreal. You appear to lead a sad empty life spending your time posting on Internet forums where you post what should be private information about yourself to people who couldn't give a toss about you and doing silly competitions in magazines.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 06, 2017, 10:51:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 10:10:19 PM
Look,ffs,my parents both left school at 14,with no qualifications.They were never unemployed in their lives.We lived in Portadown,a town that was entirely mixed until the troubles/IRA campaign started  (which were unnecessary according to the SDLP and all Freestate parties) drove people into sectarian housing,and the driving out was done on both sides.We never had a moment's trouble with anyone of a different religion,and up to 1990 we lived in predominantly Protestant neighbourhoods.Courtesy of British funded education myself and late brother (who would,despite coming from a very low socio economic background,become a GP),both attained third level education and social mobility my parents could only dream of.

We were nothing special,we worked hard to avail of all opportunities,and sacrifices made by our parents,which everyone else had.So forgive me for not feeling deprived or discriminated against.

My family on my mother's side were Tunnel born and bred. That wasn't their experience going all the way back to partition and before. It was the big bad IRA's fault  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 11:10:48 PM
Maurice Hayes,Catholic and widely credited with Down GAAs emergence in the 1960s,was NI Ombudsman,decades ago.

I can only go from my own experience,discrimination was not nearly as bad as made out,my pre troubles  primary school years were carefree,my parents were never out of work and we had as much or as little as our Protestant neighbours.I happen to believe that if we had that life in Portadown,and it did involve hard work,then anyone else could have done the same.No doors were closed.

Are you saying for example that Catholic middle classes did not dwell in the leafy suburbs,in Malone Road?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: randomusername on December 06, 2017, 11:12:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 11:10:48 PM
Maurice Hayes,Catholic and widely credited with Down GAAs emergence in the 1960s,was NI Ombudsman,decades ago.

I can only go from my own experience,discrimination was not nearly as bad as made out,my primary school years were carefree,my parents were never out of work and we had as much or as little as our Protestant neighbours.I happen to believe that if we had that life in Portadown,and it did involve hard work,then anyone else could have done the same.

Are you saying for example that Catholic middle classes did not dwell in the leafy suburbs,in Malone Road?

Not many of them anyway, nationalists used to poll less than 10% in South Belfast.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 11:21:26 PM
Well they did in Portadown,well away from the housing estates containing less privileged Catholics and Protestants.Im pretty sure in my very young day Portadown had only one Dentist,and he was a Catholic,as were the majority of the town's General Practitioners who all ran surgeries in their (big) homes,in the pre Health Centre days.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: randomusername on December 06, 2017, 11:26:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 11:21:26 PM
Well they did in Portadown,well away from the housing estates containing less privileged Catholics and Protestants.Im pretty sure in my very young day Portadown had only one Dentist,and he was a Catholic,as were the majority of the town's General Practitioners who all ran surgeries in their (big) homes,in the pre Health Centre days.

Well for whatever reason it seemed to be the exeption rather than the rule back then. For example in Cookstown:

"Unemployment in Cookstown is 35.6 percent, the second highest rate in the province.

The Cookstown District Council, in which the Protestants have a one-vote majority, excludes Catholic councilors from all committees and external bodies on which councilors normally sit. In 1979, the Fair Employment Agency found no Catholics employed in the Council's offices; only 13 percent of public works employees were Catholic.

In the meat factory, which is one of the larger and better-paying employers, the Fair Employment Agency found only 33 Catholics in a workforce of 316 this year. The plant agreed to encourage Catholic applicants. ''
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 11:27:16 PM
Even my maternal grandmother made her way as a young girl,from Catholic East Tyrone to Black Portadown,to find work as a servant girl in one of the big houses.As she and my parents often said there was always work for anyone who wanted it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 06, 2017, 11:48:51 PM
So there was no discrimination against Catholics
70% of employees of the "Londonderry"City Council were Catholics
The Derry guildhall was full of Catholic employees
Catholics got equal opportunity of Council houses
And so on.
You'd wonder what all that civil rights agitation wad all about back in 1968.
Probably lazy Catholics who wouldn't work or apply for Council houses just wanting to cause trouble.....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 05:33:23 AM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination.I am saying that it was over exaggerated and giving the extremely positive example of my own family in an overwhelmingly Protestant town to support my claim.In any event,due to a raft of reforms, institutional  discrimination was largely defeated 40 years ago.I know of at least two retail catholic family businesses that were established in Portadown town centre in the mid 1960s that are still going strong in the same location,today.That couldn't happen without the support of all the people.

Seriously in my life I've heard the "just because I am a Catholic" excuse used for every possible scenario,from failing exams to not getting picked for football teams!

I seriously don't think we would have had the same opportunities in the impoverished South,growing up.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on December 07, 2017, 07:04:11 AM
Do the words "sample size" mean anything to you?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 07:43:12 AM
No.It only takes one fact to explode a myth.Those who wanted work,like my parents,found it,even though it was low paid.I lived in three different areas in Portadown,growing up,all predominantly Protestant,so housing was not a problem,neither was there a problem living in harmony with neighbours who would lend a helping hand if needed as we would to them.Those of my generation who wanted to get on and were prepared to work,were not denied opportunities.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on December 07, 2017, 09:03:32 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 07:43:12 AM
No.It only takes one fact to explode a myth.Those who wanted work,like my parents,found it,even though it was low paid.I lived in three different areas in Portadown,growing up,all predominantly Protestant,so housing was not a problem.Those of my generation who wanted to get on and were prepared to work,were not denied opportunities.

Are you Gerry Armstrong in disguise??

Read over some of your posts.  Your maternal grandmother was a servant and your parents had low paid jobs...but sure they were grateful for the benevolence of their Unionist friends and neighbours.  Who needs a vote?  In any society there are always opportunities for children who want to go up chimneys.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 09:09:00 AM
They were in jobs,with the exact same pay and conditions as their unskilled protestant colleagues,ffs.
We lived in the same houses as our Protestant neighbours.Got the same education and sat the same exams,had to get the same grades as Protestants to get to University.Much the same as it is today.Better qualifications and skills lead to better paid jobs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 07, 2017, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 11:27:16 PM
Even my maternal grandmother made her way as a young girl,from Catholic East Tyrone to Black Portadown,to find work as a servant girl in one of the big houses.As she and my parents often said there was always work for anyone who wanted it.
Wages and conditions are more important than just having a job And the plural of anecdote is not data. .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 07, 2017, 09:29:09 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 05:33:23 AM
I am not saying there wasn't discrimination.I am saying that it was over exaggerated and giving the extremely positive example of my own family in an overwhelmingly Protestant town to support my claim.In any event,due to a raft of reforms, institutional  discrimination was largely defeated 40 years ago.I know of at least two retail catholic family businesses that were established in Portadown town centre in the mid 1960s that are still going strong in the same location,today.That couldn't happen without the support of all the people.

Seriously in my life I've heard the "just because I am a Catholic" excuse used for every possible scenario,from failing exams to not getting picked for football teams!

I seriously don't think we would have had the same opportunities in the impoverished South,growing up.
The southern economy took off in the 60s.
That was when the protestant industries began to collapse as well.
The south leveraged education while the north descended into violence.
That is why the south is stronger now  .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 09:36:15 AM
Funny,my grammar school education began practically at the outbreak of the troubles  in 1970,my brother's in 1971.Neither troubles,nor religious or community background harmed us.True,the loyalist workers strike in May 74 was a pain in the arse,travelling to and from school,but we managed very well.I graduated in 1981,my brother collected a Sigerson Cup medal in 1982, and qualified as a Doctor a year later.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 07, 2017, 09:41:51 AM
To summarise up the North was a wonderful place from 1922 to 1969 until that John Hume started the "Troubles".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on December 07, 2017, 09:58:17 AM
I too grew up in Portadown, my experiences were very different. We were put out of our house in Redmanville in the early 70s and forced to move to the Garvaghy Road. The nationalist population in Portadown was most certainly discriminated against. Anyhow some of my family members contributed to changing the look and shape of the town  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 10:43:07 AM
I am not denying there was discrimination,at best you could say the working class Protestant community had marginal advantages over the Working class catholic community.The monied middle classes of both communities enjoyed huge advantages over everyone.Catholics were driven out of mainly Protestant estates,and vice Versa Protestants were driven out of mainly catholic estates,but this was not happening pre troubles in the 60s. I spent two very early years of my life in Killicomaine,now a loyalist enclave,without any problems. Like it or not the troubles pushed the working classes into segregated housing. As I said before all Dublin Govts and the SDLP have repeatedly said there was no need or justification for the violence.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 07, 2017, 12:49:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 06, 2017, 09:09:50 PM
I wouldn't expect you to understand but a lot of households with large families up here attracted benefit levels that made employment not worthwhile.Those large families were invariably catholic.
Tony you're probably a holocaust denier as well.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 07, 2017, 12:55:26 PM
I have decided that when it comes to this thread Tony is probably best ignored. Knowing Portadown well I do not recognise the idyllic rose tinted view of his wonderful childhood in that bastion of loyalist tolerance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 01:02:58 PM
My childhood was pre troubles.I have presented a fully factual accurate account of my family's life and experience and achievements from a very low socio economic background,with parents who were never out of work,living for over 30 years of my life,pre and through the troubles in predominantly Protestant areas without trouble.Hell, my parents were members of many cross community charity groups they even received and accepted an invite to a garden party with Royalty at Hillsborough Castle once as members of one of these groups.Something I confess I wouldn't have accepted,but then they didn't see stereotypes,they saw people who they respected,and respected them in return.

We didn't go around thinking we were akin to black people in Alabama,nor attribute all of life's many inevitable disappointments to the fact that we were Catholics.We just got on with it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 01:15:13 PM
I could tell you stories of lads going down South at weekends,from INF club in Lurgan for example,and maybe being a wee bit boisterous,and being told by the Guards to go home to "your black North"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Brick Tamlin on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 01:02:58 PM
My childhood was pre troubles.I have presented a fully factual accurate account of my family's life and experience and achievements from a very low socio economic background,with parents who were never out of work,living for over 30 years of my life,pre and through the troubles in predominantly Protestant areas without trouble.Hell, my parents were members of many cross community charity groups they even received and accepted an invite to a garden party with Royalty at Hillsborough Castle once as members of one of these groups.Something I confess I wouldn't have accepted,but then they didn't see stereotypes,they saw people who they respected,and respected them in return.

We didn't go around thinking we were akin to black people in Alabama,nor attribute all of life's many inevitable disappointments to the fact that we were Catholics.We just got on with it.

Did they win it in a competition
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 02:23:20 PM
Yawn
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on December 07, 2017, 02:36:04 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 07:43:12 AM
No.It only takes one fact to explode a myth.Those who wanted work,like my parents,found it,even though it was low paid.I lived in three different areas in Portadown,growing up,all predominantly Protestant,so housing was not a problem,neither was there a problem living in harmony with neighbours who would lend a helping hand if needed as we would to them.Those of my generation who wanted to get on and were prepared to work,were not denied opportunities.

to read between the lines, those of your generation who were denied opportunities were the ones who didn't want to get on and weren't prepared to work. Which is a load of nonsense
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 03:07:00 PM
Well how did we get on then in Black Portydown? Yes I think "discrimination" is used  as an excuse for a lot of failings.But there was work and opportunity for everyone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on December 07, 2017, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 03:07:00 PM
Well how did we get on then in Black Portydown? Yes I think "discrimination" is used  as an excuse for a lot of failings.But there was work and opportunity for everyone.

for everyone? Really? Just because you and yours got on fairly well, and Im glad you did, did not mean everyone did Tony.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 03:11:50 PM
Why do ye lads given him the attention he craves? It's ye that need to excercise some self control. Even what seems like the smartest comeback in your head still means you're giving him what he's looking for.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on December 07, 2017, 03:19:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 03:11:50 PM
Why do ye lads given him the attention he craves? It's ye that need to excercise some self control. Even what seems like the smartest comeback in your head still means you're giving him what he's looking for.

I do agree with you but my mother's family are the same generation as Tony. They also grew up in Portadown, in a protestant estate. I don't like what Tony is alluding to
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 07, 2017, 03:30:11 PM
Tony you can't hide from the fact that there was huge discrimination in the North, the big industrial companies hired protestant working class people, their kids joined and then their kids joined the company, there was no real application forms filled out prior to the 60/70's

Belfast had, Harlands, Shorts, NI water, NI electric and Mackies as your major engineering employers, up to the very early 90's (from my own personal experience) 90% percent of the employess were from a protestant background, catholics didnt apply to these places for a few reasons, fear being one, rejection another, wrong part of town and wrong religion..

Now when the equality commission came in and forced these companies to employ everyone we still had years of discrimination to fix, people still didnt want to work there... its changed now though, not fully 50/50 and some of these employers are no more but i dont think there is a job out there that hasnt got procedures in place to ensure the best person gets the job or a policy in place to encourage a 50/50 workplace, be it catholic/protestant/black/white/ and the LBGT crowd..

My dad had to work in the buliding game because that was the only thing available for him when he left school, mum went and worked in the biggest employer of catholics in Belfast, the Royal hospital, to be fair to them they never tried to stop me taking up an apprenticeship with Harlands, in the 80's.. an engineering qualification and trade were in short supply in Belfast for catholics, but the more that applied for these jobs in these type of companies the better as it showed the way to others that while it was a cold house for catholics it was the only way to break cycle of jobs for the boys..

Your background Tony is the exception rather the rule, yes there is view of people claiming benefits and a culture of it in working class catholics areas, thats because that was the only way to survive, and its very hard to break that culture when generations of those families have known nothing else, but its changing hopefully
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 03:38:23 PM
I am sure like me you know a lot of people who neither worked nor wanted.I am not saying discrimination didn't happen but it was and is still exaggerated.I can only opine on my own family and my parents oft repeated words,there's work for those who want it. Catholics had access to all public services etc and the Catholic education system was fully facilitated.

The middle classes on both sides had it easy,no peace walls etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 07, 2017, 03:42:43 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 03:38:23 PM
I am sure like me you know a lot of people who neither worked nor wanted.I am not saying discrimination didn't happen but it was and is still exaggerated.I can only opine on my own family and my parents oft repeated words,there's work for those who want it. Catholics had access to all public services etc and the Catholic education system was fully facilitated.

The middle classes on both sides had it easy,no peace walls etc.

Now we understand why this is the world (an independent north) that you want to go back to, with no oversight from either the British or Irish governments to make sure one community doesn't run roughshod over the other. Everything was a land of roses and honey and if it wasn't for NICRA and their devious plot to invent sectarian tensions, that is the way it would always have remained.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on December 07, 2017, 03:56:48 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 01:02:58 PM
My childhood was pre troubles.I have presented a fully factual accurate account of my family's life and experience and achievements from a very low socio economic background,with parents who were never out of work,living for over 30 years of my life,pre and through the troubles in predominantly Protestant areas without trouble.Hell, my parents were members of many cross community charity groups they even received and accepted an invite to a garden party with Royalty at Hillsborough Castle once as members of one of these groups.Something I confess I wouldn't have accepted,but then they didn't see stereotypes,they saw people who they respected,and respected them in return.

We didn't go around thinking we were akin to black people in Alabama,nor attribute all of life's many inevitable disappointments to the fact that we were Catholics.We just got on with it.

My mother was born in 1953 so pre troubles. She lived in Redmonville and it certainly was not as idyllic as you describe. Did she run a gauntlet everyday? No. But she was spat upon by a neighbour - one named in a couple of books if memory serves me right - and her family members were threatened on numerous occasions. Now she got a job teaching in St Brigids, later Drumcree, but not everyone was as lucky as her and I can assure you, for many, it was not down to not wanting to work
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
Branching off a bit here, but with Fair Employment introduced which enabled more Catholics to get certain jobs. Now that's in place, has even those Catholics been forced down the list and LBGT's taken priority for jobs? Just a thought.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
Branching off a bit here, but with Fair Employment introduced which enabled more Catholics to get certain jobs. Now that's in place, has even those Catholics been forced down the list and LBGT's taken priority for jobs? Just a thought.

A terrible, regressive thought that ignores the very basic laws of recruitment. Do you think a gay person has their sexuality tattooed on their forehead or something?

If you're going to try to vaguely target a minority group at least spell it right.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 07, 2017, 04:15:38 PM
So the latest ruse is that discrimination was just an excuse for all those low life failure's in society who never made anything of themselves. Just because you personally were so wonderful to be able to overcome any prejudice and become a member of the middle class in society does not make it true for a whole population of catholics.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 07, 2017, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 03:38:23 PM
I am sure like me you know a lot of people who neither worked nor wanted.I am not saying discrimination didn't happen but it was and is still exaggerated.I can only opine on my own family and my parents oft repeated words,there's work for those who want it. Catholics had access to all public services etc and the Catholic education system was fully facilitated.

The middle classes on both sides had it easy,no peace walls etc.

You really are a deluded fool  :-[
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
Branching off a bit here, but with Fair Employment introduced which enabled more Catholics to get certain jobs. Now that's in place, has even those Catholics been forced down the list and LBGT's taken priority for jobs? Just a thought.

A terrible, regressive thought that ignores the very basic laws of recruitment. Do you think a gay person has their sexuality tattooed on their forehead or something?

If you're going to try to vaguely target a minority group at least spell it right.

It's an acronym. You cant "spell" an acronym.

Well, if a gay thought by declaring they were gay on a form (which I presume is an option these days), they might declare it if they thought it would increase their chances.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on December 07, 2017, 05:11:49 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 07, 2017, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 03:38:23 PM
I am sure like me you know a lot of people who neither worked nor wanted.I am not saying discrimination didn't happen but it was and is still exaggerated.I can only opine on my own family and my parents oft repeated words,there's work for those who want it. Catholics had access to all public services etc and the Catholic education system was fully facilitated.

The middle classes on both sides had it easy,no peace walls etc.

You really are a deluded fool  :-[

+1
As a catholic who was never out of work ( most of us are the same) I find this mentality offensive
Just because i have a work ethic instilled by great parents doesn't mean I belong in some ivory tower where I can look down and judge the lesser privileged

On the imbalance of civil rights that prevailed against catholics during this era
If a United Ireland was ever achieved we must ensure that the protestant communities are held as equals or we have endured those hardships for nothing
Any thing else would be to unionists for me   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on December 07, 2017, 05:30:36 PM
Latest Lucid Talk poll (a rather long question!):

In the context of a "Hard Brexit" and NI leaving the EU with no deal on the border, GFA or citizens' rights: if the question used in in an NI Border Poll Referendum was:

Should NI REMAIN in the EU bu joining with the Republic of Ireland or LEAVE the EU by staying in the UK?

If the poll were tomorrow which way would you vote?

REMAIN in EU by joining with RoI:    47.9%
LEAVE the EU by staying in the UK:  45.4%
D/K but would vote:                             6.0%
Wouldn't vote:                                     0.7%
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 07, 2017, 05:43:32 PM
Quote from: AQMP on December 07, 2017, 05:30:36 PM
Latest Lucid Talk poll (a rather long question!):

In the context of a "Hard Brexit" and NI leaving the EU with no deal on the border, GFA or citizens' rights: if the question used in in an NI Border Poll Referendum was:

Should NI REMAIN in the EU bu joining with the Republic of Ireland or LEAVE the EU by staying in the UK?

If the poll were tomorrow which way would you vote?

REMAIN in EU by joining with RoI:    47.9%
LEAVE the EU by staying in the UK:  45.4%
D/K but would vote:                             6.0%
Wouldn't vote:                                     0.7%

That's a first!
This might soften the DUPs cough and encourage not putting things to the test.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 05:45:11 PM
Did you talk to any of the Protestants in Portadown forced out of Ballyoran,Churchill Park? I think undoubtedly there was a Protestant work ethic that was not shared by all catholics as well.Discrimination here, like in Scotland back in the day was not institutional but practiced by certain individuals who wielded too much power.It was exaggerated,and in any case has long since been defeated.It had no impact on my life or any of my family and I was born and reared in arguably the North's most staunchly Protestant town.

By the way your good friends in the DUP sit in government with SF here, something FF and FG have pledged never to do in Dublin.Do you see this as being discriminatory?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 07, 2017, 05:45:59 PM
(https://i2.wp.com/sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/LT-1.jpg?w=708&ssl=1)

The undecideds are mostly middle of the road, as likely to go one way as the other.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 06:02:41 PM
Er has anyone asked the Dublin Govt or people in the South? I will bet money that any referendum would not reach anywhere near 40% in favour of unity and I'd doubt if it would endorse the North staying in the EU.Dont get over excited.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 07, 2017, 06:07:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 05:45:11 PM
Did you talk to any of the Protestants in Portadown forced out of Ballyoran,Churchill Park? I think undoubtedly there was a Protestant work ethic that was not shared by all catholics as well.Discrimination here, like in Scotland back in the day was not institutional but practiced by certain individuals who wielded too much power.It was exaggerated,and in any case has long since been defeated.It had no impact on my life or any of my family and I was born and reared in arguably the North's most staunchly Protestant town.

By the way your good friends in the DUP sit in government with SF here, something FF and FG have pledged never to do in Dublin.Do you see this as being discriminatory?

You need help. I fear for your mental wellbeing, I really do
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 06:16:18 PM
And you would know what about it? Were you even born 50 years ago?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 07, 2017, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 05:45:11 PM
Did you talk to any of the Protestants in Portadown forced out of Ballyoran,Churchill Park? I think undoubtedly there was a Protestant work ethic that was not shared by all catholics as well.Discrimination here, like in Scotland back in the day was not institutional but practiced by certain individuals who wielded too much power.It was exaggerated,and in any case has long since been defeated.It had no impact on my life or any of my family and I was born and reared in arguably the North's most staunchly Protestant town.

By the way your good friends in the DUP sit in government with SF here, something FF and FG have pledged never to do in Dublin.Do you see this as being discriminatory?

Protestant work ethic? Please Tony stay off the glue, catholics had a Work harder ethic as they didn't have the same opportunities as their Protestant neighbours. Living off social welfare was the only way families could survive, and with flaming catholic teachings at the time they didn't use the pill to have normal manageable family size, instead of families having up to ten or more kids!

Stop using your own story as an example, I much prefer of hearing about people brought up on the breadline,  rasing a family who all went on to achieve education and a regular job, not a doctor or a serial radio/magazine competition player!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 06:30:57 PM
Yeah because that feeds your prejudice.I am glad I don't carry these chips on my shoulder.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 07, 2017, 06:43:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 06:16:18 PM
And you would know what about it? Were you even born 50 years ago?

51, actually. Now move away from the keyboard for a couple of days, you're making an even bigger clown of yourself than normal
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 07, 2017, 06:50:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 06:30:57 PM
Yeah because that feeds your prejudice.I am glad I don't carry these chips on my shoulder.

I'm the exception to the rule too Tony, but I'm not stupid enough to look round me and not see/seen what happens/happened...

I'm speaking from experience, working in  those jobs and seeing it first hand
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 07:43:39 PM
But would you say there was mass discrimination Alabama style? All I saw was the middles classes of all hues and creeds living very comfortably,while the working and unemployed classes,living quite contentedly together during my early years until the Violence broke out and drove these people into segregated areas and at each other's throats.Thankfully I was spared that, and I didn't see any advantages our Protestant neighbours had that we were deprived of.

Looking back I don't think my family would have fared as well had we lived in Louth or Meath,with no free health service or other equivalent public services and a very much weaker economy which led to mass emigration.

Either way I'm not hooked up on it,I don't feel a second class citizen and never did.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 07, 2017, 07:47:23 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 07:43:39 PM
But would you say there was mass discrimination Alabama style? All I saw was the middles classes of all hues and creeds living very comfortably,while the working and unemployed classes,living quite contentedly together during my early years until the Violence broke out and drove these people into segregated areas and at each other's throats.Thankfully I was spared that, and I didn't see any advantages our Protestant neighbours had that we were deprived of.

Looking back I don't think my family would have fared as well had we lived in Louth or Meath,with no free health service or other equivalent public services and a very much weaker economy which led to mass emigration.

Either way I'm not hooked up on it,I don't feel a second class citizen and never did.

I've heard stories of doctors emigrating or changing career paths due to being overlooked and/or looked down on for being a Catholic, so it's somewhere that affected all the nationalist classes, even if the working class did get it worst.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 07, 2017, 07:47:58 PM
So what you're telling us is that the Fearon clan 'lay down' as instructed.  Accept your shitty job croppie, and be glad of it.  You're practically celebrating the fact that your granny was 'allowed' to be a servant in the big house.  A house which is quite likely to have been built on and sustained by land stolen from your ancestors.

Away and buy another poppy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 02 on December 07, 2017, 07:48:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 07:43:39 PM

Looking back I don't think my family would have fared as well had we lived in Louth or Meath,with no free health service or other equivalent public services and a very much weaker economy which led to mass emigration.


Maybe not as a whole but your brother would have been quids or punts in with a private practice :)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 07, 2017, 08:09:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 07:43:39 PM
But would you say there was mass discrimination Alabama style? All I saw was the middles classes of all hues and creeds living very comfortably,while the working and unemployed classes,living quite contentedly together during my early years until the Violence broke out and drove these people into segregated areas and at each other's throats.Thankfully I was spared that, and I didn't see any advantages our Protestant neighbours had that we were deprived of.

Looking back I don't think my family would have fared as well had we lived in Louth or Meath,with no free health service or other equivalent public services and a very much weaker economy which led to mass emigration.

Either way I'm not hooked up on it,I don't feel a second class citizen and never did.

Tony you lived in the country towns and life probably was better than the shit holes that were an excuse for housing in Derry and Belfast, were segregation was the norm, burning people out of their houses was the norm, not just in one period during the troubles but long before that. Wholesale discrimination at the civil service and Gerrymandering for controlling councils, so who owned the business in these places?

Look at the figures for employment during the time you grew up and now, and let that guid you to whether it was a myth or exaggeration.. here's on figure for you.. I started in shipyard 88, 40 apprentices 4 of which were catholics! That was after equal opportunities came in place
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 08:18:16 PM
No there were burn outs too.One business burnt out 45 years ago is still going strong.Seriously I did not witness any obvious mass discrimination,I lived in predominantly Protestant areas in the same conditions as my neighbours,and never had a problem.

Maybe it was different in nationalist towns or in heavy industries in Belfast.But access to free grammar education by merit was the making of us.Even then working class boys like me were the exception in grammar schools,we were few and far between.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 07, 2017, 08:26:16 PM
Free secondary education or grammar was afforded for anyone, what's your point? 90% of the lads that went to St Mary's Belfast would have been from working class, they would have still been discriminated at work and had their houses burnt out and forced to flee in the night... stop talking about one particular town and family and look at the rest 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on December 07, 2017, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 06:02:41 PM
Er has anyone asked the Dublin Govt or people in the South? I will bet money that any referendum would not reach anywhere near 40% in favour of unity and I'd doubt if it would endorse the North staying in the EU.Dont get over excited.

Baseless opinion with no data whatsoever, again...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 08:51:01 PM
It's not baseless.Brexit is now,like most things here a Unionist v Nationalist fight,the unionists are in the majority.

Secondly the Dublin Govt has been at pains to assure unionists in recent days that there is no threat to end the union.

Neither the UK Govt and Irish Govt will allow a referendum in the North on a)Brexit or b)A United Ireland,no matter how many polls there are
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 02 on December 07, 2017, 09:00:50 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 08:51:01 PM
It's not baseless.Brexit is now,like most things here a Unionist v Nationalist fight,the unionists are in the majority.

Secondly the Dublin Govt has been at pains to assure unionists in recent days that there is no threat to end the union.

Neither the UK Govt and Irish Govt will allow a referendum in the North on a)Brexit or b)A United Ireland,no matter how many polls there are

On Brexit no, but there will be a United Ireland, it is inevitable. NI is not sustainable longer term. I just hope your predictions are as bad as they were for how Brendan Rodgers would do as Celtic manager.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 07, 2017, 09:04:26 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 08:51:01 PM
It's not baseless.Brexit is now,like most things here a Unionist v Nationalist fight,the unionists are in the majority.

Unionists are not in a majority, they got 45% of the vote in the Assembly election.
Please come back with a fact based point.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 07, 2017, 09:05:40 PM
Tony , Unionists are no longer a majority.
That free second level education was imposed on the screaming kicking Unionist Stormont because they knew it would turn out a crowd of well educated Fenians who would see how rotten things were.
The Irish Government have no official say on a Referendum in the North.
Gift of the British Secretary of State for the 6 Cos.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 07, 2017, 09:09:03 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 08:51:01 PM
It's not baseless.Brexit is now,like most things here a Unionist v Nationalist fight,the unionists are in the majority.

Secondly the Dublin Govt has been at pains to assure unionists in recent days that there is no threat to end the union.

Neither the UK Govt and Irish Govt will allow a referendum in the North on a)Brexit or b)A United Ireland,no matter how many polls there are

What are they going to say, "we've got the army massed on the border, with decent maps this time"? They agreed to the consent based principle which is the point they are making, that maintaining a soft border is not a land grab. If they said it was the next step on the road to a UI it would never be accepted by the DUP either. Ironically, an open border here (with a sea border between Ireland the UK) or a hard border in Ireland will accelerate Irish unity, so they're f*cked either way. They've done irreversible damage recently (since the fleg protests) with moderate nationalists who were beginning to accept the status quo, and driven away moderate unionists who might now be "neutral" on the issue.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 09:10:34 PM
And a United Ireland is sustainable? How? Sure the 26 counties was bankrupt recently😂😂😂.It cannot even manage itself never mind taking on board the basket case economy of the six counties!

Seriously I would doubt if I'd vote for a United Ireland now.I am not convinced about its financial management ability ,all its governments were crap,many run by corrupt shysters,it is behoven to the EU with little or no sovereignty left,and I disagree with its stance on gay marriage etc,its shameful and immoral tax concessions to big multinational companies

Better the devil you know! In any event not one person posting on this board will live long enough to see a United Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 07, 2017, 09:14:35 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 09:10:34 PM
And a United Ireland is sustainable? How? Sure the 26 counties was bankrupt recently😂😂😂.It cannot even manage itself never mind taking on board the basket case economy of the six counties!

Seriously I would doubt if I'd vote for a United Ireland now.I am not convinced about its financial management ability ,all its governments were crap,many run by corrupt shysters,it is behoven to the EU with little or no sovereignty left,and I disagree with its stance on gay marriage etc,its shameful and immoral tax concessions to big multinational companies

Better the devil you know! In any event not one person posting on this board will live long enough to see a United Ireland.

I'd put a considerable sum of money that I will live to see a UI, and I'd be fairly confident that you will too.

How can you bring up the financial state of the south? It's not utopia but income levels are far higher than the north, the (admittedly skewed) GDP figures have it in the top 10 in the world for per capita GDP. The state didn't need a bailout, it was the banks.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 09:23:30 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 09:10:34 PM
And a United Ireland is sustainable? How? Sure the 26 counties was bankrupt recently😂😂😂.It cannot even manage itself never mind taking on board the basket case economy of the six counties!

Seriously I would doubt if I'd vote for a United Ireland now.I am not convinced about its financial management ability ,all its governments were crap,many run by corrupt shysters,it is behoven to the EU with little or no sovereignty left,and I disagree with its stance on gay marriage etc,its shameful and immoral tax concessions to big multinational companies

Better the devil you know! In any event not one person posting on this board will live long enough to see a United Ireland.

The North is a basket case because of successive British policies.

It's not the done thing to laugh at the southern bailout. Ordinary hardworking people are feckin' paying for and continually suffering due to said bailout.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: MK on December 07, 2017, 09:25:57 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 09:10:34 PM
And a United Ireland is sustainable? How? Sure the 26 counties was bankrupt recently😂😂😂.It cannot even manage itself never mind taking on board the basket case economy of the six counties!

Seriously I would doubt if I'd vote for a United Ireland now.I am not convinced about its financial management ability ,all its governments were crap,many run by corrupt shysters,it is behoven to the EU with little or no sovereignty left,and I disagree with its stance on gay marriage etc,its shameful and immoral tax concessions to big multinational companies

Better the devil you know! In any event not one person posting on this board will live long enough to see a United Ireland.

Realistically the story regards the North is:

London doesn't want it and
Dublin  can't afford it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 07, 2017, 09:32:41 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 09:10:34 PM
And a United Ireland is sustainable? How? Sure the 26 counties was bankrupt recently😂😂😂.It cannot even manage itself never mind taking on board the basket case economy of the six counties!

It borrowed money and paid it back. Did you ever borrow money? Did you pay it back? Were you bankrupt?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 07, 2017, 09:33:57 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 09:10:34 PM
And a United Ireland is sustainable? How? Sure the 26 counties was bankrupt recently😂😂😂.It cannot even manage itself never mind taking on board the basket case economy of the six counties!

Seriously I would doubt if I'd vote for a United Ireland now.I am not convinced about its financial management ability ,all its governments were crap,many run by corrupt shysters,it is behoven to the EU with little or no sovereignty left,and I disagree with its stance on gay marriage etc,its shameful and immoral tax concessions to big multinational companies

Better the devil you know! In any event not one person posting on this board will live long enough to see a United Ireland.

;D ;D ;D And that is different to the politicians in the north how?

If you're arguing over the respective strength of the 2 economies then you're talking nonsense. The north is an economic basket case at present but given time could eventually flourish inside a UI.

Also you say you doubt if you would vote for a UI. Yet countless times previously you have advocated an independent state due to a distinct culture. So in that case why is there even a doubt that you might even contemplate a UI that you can't even say for definite that you wouldn't vote for it now. If even you are doubting your own decision that previously you were set against then that in itself is a sign that the middle ground alliance and soft unionists are at least contemplating the prospect.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 07, 2017, 10:16:55 PM
Brexit was driven by the little Englanders who believed the lies that all the money they gave to the EU would stay in Britain and be spent there. These same little Englanders will start asking questions very soon after Brexit about the £10bn a year forked out by Westminster to keep this failed shithole afloat.. Tick, tick, tick, the statelet's time is fast running out
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 10:54:58 PM
And Dublin is going to fork out this £10bn? 😂😂😂.The North has been a drain on Britain for nearly 100 years,yet it hasn't been relinquished.I recommend you read the letters page in the Newsletter these days.Arlene now enjoys Edward Carson iconic like status among Unionists for putting those freestaters in their place.One letter writer says No Unionist can now vote to stay in the EU as it would be akin to voting for a United Ireland.If a referendum was run in the North on EU membership now the vote would be a significant majority leave result.

What makes anyone think a United Ireland,which is never going to happen, would be a utopia? The likelihood  is a merger between Unionists and FG to rule permanently ,there would be twice as many Orange parades,unionism/loyalism's every whim would be satisfied to keep them happy etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 07, 2017, 10:57:31 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 10:54:58 PM
And Dublin is going to fork out this £10bn? 😂😂😂.The North has been a drain on Britain for nearly 100 years,yet it hasn't been relinquished.I recommend you read the letters page in the Newsletter these days.Arlene now enjoys Edward Carson iconic like status among Unionists for putting those freestaters in their place.One letter writer says No Unionist can now vote to stay in the EU as it would be akin to voting for a United Ireland.If a referendum was run in the North on EU membership now the vote would be a significant majority leave result.

What makes anyone think a United Ireland,which is never going to happen, would be a utopia? The likelihood  is a merger between Unionists and FG to rule permanently ,there would be twice as many Orange parades,unionism/loyalism's every whim would be satisfied to keep them happy etc.

The sort of people that regularly write into the Irish News or the Newsletter are not generally representative of the greater population, like that eejit from Cork that is never out of the Irish News.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 11:03:15 PM
Both letters pages are generally a good barometer of opinion.FFS show me a shred of evidence that any section of unionism is willing to even consider a United Ireland.When the likes of Alex Kane won't even contemplate it there is no chance of Unionist consent.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 07, 2017, 11:20:09 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 11:03:15 PM
Both letters pages are generally a good barometer of opinion.FFS show me a shred of evidence that any section of unionism is willing to even consider a United Ireland.When the likes of Alex Kane won't even contemplate it there is no chance of Unionist consent.

The ones in the LucidTalk poll. The Alliance member writing in Slugger. Considering that you(or your namesake)  are a regular contributor to the Irish News letters page and your views are unique on gaabaord (a far greater sample size), I don't think you can say that they are a good barometer of public opinion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 11:24:31 PM
There is not going to be a United Ireland.No Unionist wants it,a substantial proportion of Catholics don't want it,and most importantly of all,the majority of the people in the South and the Dublin Govt don't want it.Continue to delude yourselves if you must,but these are hard facts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 07, 2017, 11:26:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 11:03:15 PM
Both letters pages are generally a good barometer of opinion.FFS show me a shred of evidence that any section of unionism is willing to even consider a United Ireland.When the likes of Alex Kane won't even contemplate it there is no chance of Unionist consent.

Dear god, twitter and message boards are more relevant than newspaper letter page in the current age.

The fact that you personally as a middle ground independent state advocate couldn't categorically state that you wouldn't vote against a UI is progress in itself.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 07, 2017, 11:27:34 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 07, 2017, 11:24:31 PM
There is not going to be a United Ireland.No Unionist wants it,a substantial proportion of Catholics don't want it,and most importantly of all,the majority of the people in the South and the Dublin Govt don't want it.Continue to delude yourselves if you must,but these are hard facts.
Substantial number of catholics, have you a figure? Not a made up one
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 07, 2017, 11:36:12 PM
Of course no Unionist wants a UI.
If they did they wouldn't be Unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 08, 2017, 06:10:25 AM
Correct.But there are many on here who think they can be persuaded.Last Monday they wouldn't even contemplate an Irish Sea border never mind Irish Unity! They can't be persuaded. FFS an Opinion Poll up here not too long ago showed that not all Sinn Fein supporters wanted a United Ireland even!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 08, 2017, 08:43:44 AM
Economically it has become a no brainer, the statelet is in a permanent state of disrepair in its current guise.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/demographics-are-shifting-towards-a-united-ireland-we-must-have-a-plan-35865222.html

Also the demographics show that unionists still have a significant majority at older age groups. As the age profile gets younger this veers towards a nationalist majority. Be it 10/20/30 years time, at some point in the not too distant future this will translate into an overall majority. Once the economic argument can be won this will lead to an inevitable UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 08, 2017, 08:55:55 AM
Demographics mean nothing.Unionists are getting ready to celebrate their 100th birthday.Expect to see a pledge to reach 200.Then again there is the issue that very few in the South want a United Ireland.None of us will ever see it.

Again I ask the question,what makes anyone think a United Ireland is viable when the South went bankrupt despite its love affair with the EU? What is the difference in swapping sovereign govt by Britain for that of the EU? Or as I suspect is everyone just politically motivated by outcomes that will annoy the prods?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 08, 2017, 10:35:20 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 08, 2017, 08:55:55 AM
Demographics mean nothing.Unionists are getting ready to celebrate their 100th birthday.Expect to see a pledge to reach 200.Then again there is the issue that very few in the South want a United Ireland.None of us will ever see it.

Again I ask the question,what makes anyone think a United Ireland is viable when the South went bankrupt despite its love affair with the EU? What is the difference in swapping sovereign govt by Britain for that of the EU? Or as I suspect is everyone just politically motivated by outcomes that will annoy the prods?

Demographic's mean everything you eejit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on December 08, 2017, 10:54:43 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM


Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Big introduction to get this far and then leave out Policing and the British Army.
Do you think Internment from 1971 - 75 was not discriminatory? Or the following removal of political status and prison conditions into the 80s?
Bloody Sunday in 1972 and the following investigations into it.
The Establishment, Arming and supporting of the UDR criminality.
Further cover ups and framing by security forces.

There are many more. Discrimination was not based solely on civic opportunity and it's false to claim it was. I fully understand that many of these discriminating decisions by the State were in response to the IRA. However, we are discussing the discrimination by the State. The State used the IRA to further discriminate after the end of civic discrimination. It's not true to say the State could not address the IRA without discrimination of the Catholic/Nationalist community.

These things were not individual discrimination. It was policy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on December 08, 2017, 11:03:54 AM
The 1947 education act in NI was not some sort of unilateral gift from the Unionist Parliament as they took over two years to enact something that was already in place in Great Britain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 08, 2017, 11:41:59 AM
They were forced into it by the Labour Government in Westminster.
They didn't want to implement it because they knew what it would lead to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2017, 12:00:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 08, 2017, 11:41:59 AM
They were forced into it by the Labour Government in Westminster.
They didn't want to implement it because they knew what it would lead to.

I was going to happen ffs!

Health and Safety act was started in 1974, it became an act in NI in 1978.. we were always last to pick up on these things
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on December 08, 2017, 12:03:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2017, 12:00:17 PM


I was going to happen ffs!

Health and Safety act was started in 1974, it became an act in NI in 1978.. we were always last to pick up on these things

Corporal punishment in schools two. I had the head slapped of me while the wee brother got scolded. He was a wee brat too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2017, 12:05:32 PM
Thats whats wrong with kids now!! I'm phoning child line!! when you threaten to take their phone off them  ;D ;D the one you pay £20 a month for
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 08, 2017, 02:53:31 PM
What about the Catholic Professional classes? They seemed to do alright in the leafy suburbs.I knew of a Senior Catholic Servant back in the day who seemed to do nothing else only try and work out the religious affiliation of each new staff member and boasted he could do this in an hour.There was always Catholic businesses in Portadown town centre.They couldn't have survived without the support of all sections.

Did the people of the Shankhill Road benefit from having a perpetual Unionist government? I think not.Not so long ago there were houses in the loyalist village area of Belfast still with outside toilets.

Grossly exaggerated and not a barrier at all to those who were determined and willing to work to make the most of opportunities.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on December 08, 2017, 10:54:43 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM


Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

There are many more. Discrimination was not based solely on civic opportunity and it's false to claim it was. I fully understand that many of these discriminating decisions by the State were in response to the IRA. However, we are discussing the discrimination by the State. The State used the IRA to further discriminate after the end of civic discrimination. It's not true to say the State could not address the IRA without discrimination of the Catholic/Nationalist community.

These things were not individual discrimination. It was policy.

Take a minute to read what I have written. Prior to intervention by UK government after the McCrory Report and the action it took, discrimination was not illegal.  It occurred mostly against Catholics but also against Protestant working class people.  It had nothing to do with the various IRA campaigns.  The one party state looked after its own in terms of employment and opportunity to work in the machinery of government and administration.  Working class Protestants had same restrictions on access to education as Catholics, they lived in housing conditions that were as bad as those for Catholics but they had the advantage of ready employment ahead of any Catholic.  The one party state in N.Ireland looked after the middle and upper classes who looked down on everyone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 08, 2017, 03:04:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

Don't tell me you've been taken in by the "few rotten apples" shite.

**Actually, I'm not going down "how high up did security force collusion go" rabbit hole.  You can probably guess my feelings.

Even if you were silly enough to believe this fairytale, discrimination by the agents of the state is discrimination by the state.  There's no other way to frame it.

There's a fair few victims of state collusion that would contest the bit in bold also.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 08, 2017, 02:53:31 PM
What about the Catholic Professional classes? They seemed to do alright in the leafy suburbs.I knew of a Senior Catholic Servant back in the day who seemed to do nothing else only try and work out the religious affiliation of each new staff member and boasted he could do this in an hour.There was always Catholic businesses in Portadown town centre.They couldn't have survived without the support of all sections.

Did the people of the Shankhill Road benefit from having a perpetual Unionist government? I think not.Not so long ago there were houses in the loyalist village area of Belfast still with outside toilets.

Grossly exaggerated and not a barrier at all to those who were determined and willing to work to make the most of opportunities.

The Catholic professional classes were a small grouping in every town, those whose families could afford to have them educated but the only professions were medicine and the law.  Catholic teachers were educated in small numbers but most had to go to Scotland or England to be qualified but their pay was very low and they did not form a middle class until well past the beginning of the conflict but they did represent a well educated grouping in society that had not existed before.  Catholic businesses did exist and profited from the segregated society where each supported their own.  Choice of shop was often down to the religion of the owners.

Discrimination after early 1970s is often exaggerated to support a narrative of an oppressed people needing to be saved by the conflict waged by the IRA.  It was still occurring but the safeguards against it were in place and allowed people to challenge discrimination on religious basis and also allowed Catholics to take on high level posts in the new institutions, e.g. Joe Martin, originally from Carrickmore, was appointed head of the Western Education & Library Board and Gerry Kelly held the same position in the SELB, Catholics took prominent posts in the NIHE and began to take posts in local government and in the civil service but change took time as posts in the civil service could only be filled when they became vacant.  Catholic representatives were now present in the 26 councils and were able to effect change and prevent discrimination.  Stormont was gone from 30 March 1972, no longer was N.Ireland a one party state and while rule from UK government was not acceptable it was on the most fair in relation to everyday issues of education, housing and employment thanks to the new laws it had enacted in the wake of Stormont rule.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 03:30:48 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 03:04:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

Don't tell me you've been taken in by the "few rotten apples" shite.

There were many rotten apples in the administration of N.Ireland after the new laws and institutions and not least in the RUC but in the fields of education, housing and employment, every citizen had the right to challenge discrimination and seek recompense.

Discrimination did not end, as I have stated it continues today but both sides are guilty on many of the occasions on which is occurs on the basis of religion.  In 2017, Protestants find their paths blocked as often as Catholics when it comes to employment.

I am not saying that collusion did not occur, of course it did and innocent people were killed and injured as a result but that occurred after the early 1970s when it is now being re-written by some that the IRA was fighting the state on behalf of an oppressed and discriminated population when in fact all safeguards to prevent the behaviour of the state from 1920 until 1972 in relation to social issues were firmly in place.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 08, 2017, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 03:30:48 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 03:04:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

Don't tell me you've been taken in by the "few rotten apples" shite.

There were many rotten apples in the administration of N.Ireland after the new laws and institutions and not least in the RUC but in the fields of education, housing and employment, every citizen had the right to challenge discrimination and seek recompense.

Discrimination did not end, as I have stated it continues today but both sides are guilty on many of the occasions on which is occurs on the basis of religion.  In 2017, Protestants find their paths blocked as often as Catholics when it comes to employment.

I am not saying that collusion did not occur, of course it did and innocent people were killed and injured as a result but that occurred after the early 1970s when it is now being re-written by some that the IRA was fighting the state on behalf of an oppressed and discriminated population when in fact all safeguards to prevent the behaviour of the state from 1920 until 1972 in relation to social issues were firmly in place.

It doesn't matter how many safeguards were written in the statute book.  It's TOTALLY irrelevant when the ultimate agents responsible for ensuring these safeguards were upheld were actively not enforcing them.

Simply put, discrimination was rife up until the late 90's.  The fact that they "said" they were going to stop in the 70's is neither here nor there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 05:07:20 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 03:30:48 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 03:04:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

Don't tell me you've been taken in by the "few rotten apples" shite.

There were many rotten apples in the administration of N.Ireland after the new laws and institutions and not least in the RUC but in the fields of education, housing and employment, every citizen had the right to challenge discrimination and seek recompense.

Discrimination did not end, as I have stated it continues today but both sides are guilty on many of the occasions on which is occurs on the basis of religion.  In 2017, Protestants find their paths blocked as often as Catholics when it comes to employment.

I am not saying that collusion did not occur, of course it did and innocent people were killed and injured as a result but that occurred after the early 1970s when it is now being re-written by some that the IRA was fighting the state on behalf of an oppressed and discriminated population when in fact all safeguards to prevent the behaviour of the state from 1920 until 1972 in relation to social issues were firmly in place.

It doesn't matter how many safeguards were written in the statute book.  It's TOTALLY irrelevant when the ultimate agents responsible for ensuring these safeguards were upheld were actively not enforcing them.

Simply put, discrimination was rife up until the late 90's.  The fact that they "said" they were going to stop in the 70's is neither here nor there.

That's nonsense, the laws were in place and legal aid was available, unions were geared up and ready to go to tribunals on behalf of their members.  No one was required to uphold the safeguards, employment tribunals consisted of an independent chair usually a legal expert, a person from the union side and a person from an employers background.  No lawyers were or are required at tribunals so any one could represent themselves or by their union.  Manners were put on employers from the moment the Fair Employment legislation was put on the books.  There was no one to stand in the way of employment laws or to put obstacles in the way of anyone wishing to use them to deal with discrimination in employment.  So, you are wrong. Some of the best employment law firms in N.Ireland cut their teeth representing people discriminated against from the implementation of the fair Employment Act.

The NIHE removed discrimination from housing by introducing transparent points system for allocation of houses, no longer the prerogative of politicians or unionist biased administrators.  They may not have got it right every time but with the local government act, nationalist councillors had access to the decision making process.  The polarisation of the population helped in many ways as Catholic only wanted to live among other Catholics so they were no longer competing for the same houses with Protestants and losing like the famous case in Caledon highlighting the discrimination rife in the old county council system.  The issue with NIHE came when it bought land to build more houses and it wasn't always possible to get the same amount of land in some Catholic and Protestant areas because West Belfast was so hemmed in but relieved when NIHE was allowed to develop Poleglass whereas East Belfast had more room to expand into North Down.  NIHE was also populated with a fair distribution of Catholic and Protestant administrators even to the highest levels. 

In education, the ELBs brought in maintained schools status for Catholic schools but had to persuade the Catholic Church to work with them, this provided 100% funding for all schools by the beginning of 1980s with the delay due to the Church opposition not some bogey men as you would prefer.  ELBs were managed by administrators whose religion rejected their catchment area and many Catholics led them and had positions of authority in them from the beginning as they were new institutions.

The introduction of the anti discrimination laws meant that everyone had legal protection from discrimination in housing, education and employment.  Armed with a solicitor and legal aid or a union representative no one had to suffer from discrimination in any of these social areas.

As I said above discrimination didn't end with new laws but it allowed the individual to challenge it with the law at his/her back.  What did increase in the 1990s was discrimination of the Protestant population by Catholic firms or Catholics in positions in businesses or other organisation or local government or education.

Quote from: Franko
The fact that they "said" they were going to stop in the 70's is neither here nor there.

No one "said" they were going to stop in the 70's, laws were put on the statute book and Catholics were able to challenge discrimination in housing, education or employment knowing that the law was on their side and they had their own solicitors and unions to back them up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on December 09, 2017, 07:30:13 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM


If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

I agree 100% that there was discrimination against sections of the Protestant community by the State. The State discriminated against the poor in general, unfortunately the protestant victims were given a false enemy to blame. Much like now where the poorer working class are given the immigrants to blame.
I've always maintained this to be a social conflict but the strategy of the State to paint it as a religious conflict has been so successful we are still paying that price.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 10:58:14 AM
Quote from: vallankumous on December 09, 2017, 07:30:13 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM


If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

I agree 100% that there was discrimination against sections of the Protestant community by the State. The State discriminated against the poor in general, unfortunately the protestant victims were given a false enemy to blame. Much like now where the poorer working class are given the immigrants to blame.
I've always maintained this to be a social conflict but the strategy of the State to paint it as a religious conflict has been so successful we are still paying that price.

There continues to be discrimination and abuse of authority/power in 2017 in relation to religion of job candidates by both communities where they give preference to 'their own' ahead of merit, often used an unofficial tie-breaker.  Thanks goodness for the law.

We are a bigoted society, the first thought by too many of us is whether an individual is a Protestant or Catholic with Catholic good and Protestant bad or vice versa or how often do you hear, he/she is not bad for a Protestant.

The laws instituted in the early 70s put a lie to the freedom fighting IRA from early 70s onwards and a lie to the narrative being lured out to younger people that Catholics only had one route to the freedom already available to them and given by UK laws in N.Ireland and new organisations manned equally by Catholics and Protestants. 

The real fight that the IRA had was against the British Army but it became involved in a sectarian conflict against UDA/UVF whose innate hatred of Catholics was used in many instances by the UK government in a proxy war against the IRA.  No different than all of the proxy wars fought by governments of many countries through similar hate driven organisations willing to kill for a cause.

Just check out the individuals being appointed to the multitude of quangos we still have in N.Ireland despite rules being in place, the Executive Minister has final say in all such appointments. None of these memberships is unpaid, most are at the going rate of £300 per day.  The new discrimination over the last 10 years is a political patronage and the development of special advisers which will be split wide open as the RHI inquiry proceeds and we see how SpAds are recruited and the power they weald as unelected people.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 09, 2017, 11:05:46 AM
So it's back to direct rule from Westminster till we get an All Ireland outcome??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on December 09, 2017, 11:13:28 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 10:58:14 AM

There continues to be discrimination and abuse of authority/power in 2017 in relation to religion of job candidates by both communities where they give preference to 'their own' ahead of merit, often used an unofficial tie-breaker.  Thanks goodness for the law.

Are you talking about the private sector where the self employed employ from within their community? If so then that a natural state replicated all over the world. I am be willing to accept that.

QuoteWe are a bigoted society, the first thought by too many of us is whether an individual is a Protestant or Catholic with Catholic good and Protestant bad or vice versa or how often do you hear, he/she is not bad for a Protestant.

Speak for yourself. I never hear that said.

QuoteThe laws instituted in the early 70s put a lie to the freedom fighting IRA from early 70s onwards and a lie to the narrative being lured out to younger people that Catholics only had one route to the freedom already available to them and given by UK laws in N.Ireland and new organisations manned equally by Catholics and Protestants.

My points earlier regarding security policy in Ireland (plus your next point below) have addressed this.

QuoteThe real fight that the IRA had was against the British Army but it became involved in a sectarian conflict against UDA/UVF whose innate hatred of Catholics was used in many instances by the UK government in a proxy war against the IRA.  No different than all of the proxy wars fought by governments of many countries through similar hate driven organisations willing to kill for a cause.

This was by design through British policy. The British Army could not be seen to be fighting a war within their own borders so they controlled the loyalists to provide the excuse of peace makers in a religious conflict. Sadly, they were all too successful and the community began to believe it. I have never and will never believe it was a sectarian conflict.


QuoteJust check out the individuals being appointed to the multitude of quangos we still have in N.Ireland despite rules being in place, the Executive Minister has final say in all such appointments. None of these memberships is unpaid, most are at the going rate of £300 per day.  The new discrimination over the last 10 years is a political patronage and the development of special advisers which will be split wide open as the RHI inquiry proceeds and we see how SpAds are recruited and the power they weald as unelected people.

This is the normalization we craved for. That does not excuse it nor does it mean it should not be dealt with through the law, however, it is standard politics.
From the White House to Sligo County Council, this is common practice.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: vallankumous on December 09, 2017, 11:14:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 09, 2017, 11:05:46 AM
So it's back to direct rule from Westminster till we get an All Ireland outcome??

I hope not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 09, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
Branching off a bit here, but with Fair Employment introduced which enabled more Catholics to get certain jobs. Now that's in place, has even those Catholics been forced down the list and LBGT's taken priority for jobs? Just a thought.

A terrible, regressive thought that ignores the very basic laws of recruitment. Do you think a gay person has their sexuality tattooed on their forehead or something?

If you're going to try to vaguely target a minority group at least spell it right.

It's an acronym. You cant "spell" an acronym.

Well, if a gay thought by declaring they were gay on a form (which I presume is an option these days), they might declare it if they thought it would increase their chances.
You are an offensive moron.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 09, 2017, 05:01:38 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 09, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
Branching off a bit here, but with Fair Employment introduced which enabled more Catholics to get certain jobs. Now that's in place, has even those Catholics been forced down the list and LBGT's taken priority for jobs? Just a thought.

A terrible, regressive thought that ignores the very basic laws of recruitment. Do you think a gay person has their sexuality tattooed on their forehead or something?

If you're going to try to vaguely target a minority group at least spell it right.

It's an acronym. You cant "spell" an acronym.

Well, if a gay thought by declaring they were gay on a form (which I presume is an option these days), they might declare it if they thought it would increase their chances.
You are an offensive moron.

What's offensive about that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on December 09, 2017, 05:28:35 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 09, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
Branching off a bit here, but with Fair Employment introduced which enabled more Catholics to get certain jobs. Now that's in place, has even those Catholics been forced down the list and LBGT's taken priority for jobs? Just a thought.

A terrible, regressive thought that ignores the very basic laws of recruitment. Do you think a gay person has their sexuality tattooed on their forehead or something?

If you're going to try to vaguely target a minority group at least spell it right.

It's an acronym. You cant "spell" an acronym.

Well, if a gay thought by declaring they were gay on a form (which I presume is an option these days), they might declare it if they thought it would increase their chances.
You are an offensive moron.

+1
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 08:37:10 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

You sound like a chap who was in the UDR or had relatives in the UDR.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 08:40:05 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 09, 2017, 05:01:38 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 09, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
Branching off a bit here, but with Fair Employment introduced which enabled more Catholics to get certain jobs. Now that's in place, has even those Catholics been forced down the list and LBGT's taken priority for jobs? Just a thought.

A terrible, regressive thought that ignores the very basic laws of recruitment. Do you think a gay person has their sexuality tattooed on their forehead or something?

If you're going to try to vaguely target a minority group at least spell it right.

It's an acronym. You cant "spell" an acronym.

Well, if a gay thought by declaring they were gay on a form (which I presume is an option these days), they might declare it if they thought it would increase their chances.
You are an offensive moron.

What's offensive about that?

He won't answer you. He taps out when there's a little bit of pressure applied to him.

He's a windy wee soul.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 09:12:38 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 08:37:10 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

You sound like a chap who was in the UDR or had relatives in the UDR.

Neither.  Just someone who has lived through the worst of times in this country and someone able to take an objective view of the factual account of what happened during the last 50 years and not absorbing the alternative narratives now being peddled by both sides to justify their actions.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 09:12:38 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 08:37:10 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

You sound like a chap who was in the UDR or had relatives in the UDR.

Neither.  Just someone who has lived through the worst of times in this country and someone able to take an objective view of the factual account of what happened during the last 50 years and not absorbing the alternative narratives now being peddled by both sides to justify their actions.

Your view doesn't seem objective at all. It seems very subjective and contrary to factual events and incidents. In short, you're talking bollocks.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 09:28:19 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 09:12:38 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 08:37:10 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

You sound like a chap who was in the UDR or had relatives in the UDR.

Neither.  Just someone who has lived through the worst of times in this country and someone able to take an objective view of the factual account of what happened during the last 50 years and not absorbing the alternative narratives now being peddled by both sides to justify their actions.

Your view doesn't seem objective at all. It seems very subjective and contrary to factual events and incidents. In short, you're talking bollocks.

When I get that type of reply from you, I always know I am on the right lines. You are unable to provide any logical argument or repudiation of the facts I have presented instead preferring to slur my name and character as I have highlighted above and then to dismiss anything that argues against your viewpoint.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 09, 2017, 09:47:23 PM
I don't accept there was institutional discrimination.The likes of Maurice Hayes reached the highest echelons of the Civil Service.I think in the heavy industries in Belfast Catholics were intimidated by Protestant workers,and Management may have been negligent in not tackling this.

In any event you have to look at what motivated Protestant/unionists.Northern Catholics never at any stage showed allegiance to the Northern state,and this led to Protestant/Unionist mistrust which manifested itself in exclusion.I am not saying Catholics were right or wrong not to show allegiance to the Northern statelet,but undoubtedly this did contribute to Unionist mistrust,from which exclusion and some discrimination ensued. Paisley often referred to the lack of catholic support for and loyalty to the new Northern statelet and contrasted this with Protestant support for or at least willingness to co operate in the new independent state in the South from those Protestants who lived there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 10:00:20 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 09:28:19 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 09:12:38 PM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 08:37:10 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

You sound like a chap who was in the UDR or had relatives in the UDR.

Neither.  Just someone who has lived through the worst of times in this country and someone able to take an objective view of the factual account of what happened during the last 50 years and not absorbing the alternative narratives now being peddled by both sides to justify their actions.

Your view doesn't seem objective at all. It seems very subjective and contrary to factual events and incidents. In short, you're talking bollocks.

When I get that type of reply from you, I always know I am on the right lines. You are unable to provide any logical argument or repudiation of the facts I have presented instead preferring to slur my name and character as I have highlighted above and then to dismiss anything that argues against your viewpoint.

Your whole viewpoint is based on an illogical argument and nothing of substance so I don't have make an argument as such, which is why I've just alluded to it being the type of apologist nonsense a UDR member would make. This seems to have touched a nerve with you, unsurprisingly.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Minder on December 09, 2017, 10:04:04 PM
Try and argue the point anyway to see how you get on.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 10:18:45 PM
Quote from: Minder on December 09, 2017, 10:04:04 PM
Try and argue the point anyway to see how you get on.

When you set out a position as I have done, how can you begin to have any form of logical argument with person who posts this type of slur and nonsense:

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro
You sound like a chap who was in the UDR or had relatives in the UDR.

and

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro
Your view doesn't seem objective at all. It seems very subjective and contrary to factual events and incidents. In short, you're talking bollocks.

As a wise poster on this Board used to have as his signature, a variation on a quotation from Mark Twain who took it from the Bible:

"Do not argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience"

I think I will follow his advice when dealing with Il Bomber Destro.





Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on December 09, 2017, 10:55:57 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 09, 2017, 10:18:45 PM
Quote from: Minder on December 09, 2017, 10:04:04 PM
Try and argue the point anyway to see how you get on.

When you set out a position as I have done, how can you begin to have any form of logical argument with person who posts this type of slur and nonsense:

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro
You sound like a chap who was in the UDR or had relatives in the UDR.

and

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro
Your view doesn't seem objective at all. It seems very subjective and contrary to factual events and incidents. In short, you're talking bollocks.

As a wise poster on this Board used to have as his signature, a variation on a quotation from Mark Twain who took it from the Bible:

"Do not argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience"

I think I will follow his advice when dealing with Il Bomber Destro.

It's bemusing how you expect people to have logical debates with you when you put forward illogical, baseless nonsense.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 11, 2017, 08:48:35 AM
I see Leo has written a comfort letter to Unionists in Belfast Telegraph today assuring them he has no ulterior motives (ie no United Ireland) in taking a hard stance over Brexit.

Can you imagine Unionists or the British Govt grovelling to Nationalists in a similar fashion?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 11, 2017, 08:58:13 AM
I thought you as a "northernirish" nationalist would be very happy to read that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 11, 2017, 09:11:55 AM
It's because of letters like this that I came to the realisation that Irish nationalist aspirations are senseless when they are not shared by Dublin Govts.Leo's grovelling to Unionists will lose him no votes because his electorate do not want a United Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 11, 2017, 09:46:51 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 11, 2017, 08:48:35 AM
I see Leo has written a comfort letter to Unionists in Belfast Telegraph today assuring them he has no ulterior motives (ie no United Ireland) in taking a hard stance over Brexit.

Can you imagine Unionists or the British Govt grovelling to Nationalists in a similar fashion?

Those letters from Westminster in 1922 must still be in the post then.

Dublin would bend over backwards for Unionists in a UI. Northern nationalists would again be treated as second class citizens. Look at how SF were treated by Dublin media, and the likes of Rhonda Paisley with her own TV show interviewing her unionist cronies. Suffering Jesus!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 11, 2017, 09:48:11 AM
Only one thing for it so Tony - start up the "NIIP".
You can be the new Farage.
Ye could set up a new union with Albania and Moldova.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 11, 2017, 10:31:57 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 05:07:20 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 03:51:09 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 03:30:48 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 03:04:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 08, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 08, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Life experiences in N.Ireland across the Catholic community varied in the period up to 1967 just as you would find in most societies.  In terms of discrimination against the Catholic community it is important to realise that it was institutional, i.e. the democratic deficit in N.Ireland was produced by gerrymandering over a long period of time to ensure that the absolute minimum number of Catholic representatives could be returned to Stormont and the district councils.  Within government institutions those at the higher levels were from the Protestant community and ensured that new employees came from their own community, so most civil service and similar jobs were given to Protestants regardless of their merit compared to Catholic applicants.  In businesses, there was segregation of the communities, Protestant firms employed Protestants and Catholic firms employed Catholics.  There were some instances of crossover but Catholics could never attain jobs in Protestant firms at anything other than in menial jobs that Protestants wouldn't do, not dissimilar to today's situation where migrants take the jobs that the locals don't want to do.

The one good thing that came from the Unionist parliament was the 1947 Education Act which provided free and universal education for everyone at secondary level.  This meant that the Catholic population was able to access secondary level education and have the opportunity to reach university education (at that stage only 5% of the population attended third level education).  However, this provision did not mean that everyone could afford to have their children at secondary school.  If Catholic parents had low paid work which was the norm then they needed their children to become earners as soon as possible and to leave school and get a job.  Therefore, the Catholic population remained largely poorly education at secondary level for many years after 1947.  However, some families became determined to provide their children with an education and made major sacrifices to keep their children at school.  This provided an increasing educated Catholic cohort, some managing to get to university education.  Their education did not improve their opportunities of work in government institutions.

The democratic deficit at district council level applied to both Catholic and Protestants because as well as discriminating against catholics the unionist establishment wanted to keep their own people in subjection with governments which were conservative/right wing in political position.  Councils provided votes only to rates payers, so if you didn't own property you couldn't vote in council elections.  However, business owners got multiple votes because they paid high levels of rates.  This led to councils that were business owner supporters and ignoring working classes particularly the Catholics but councils ran public housing and education so Catholics and poor Protestants were discriminated against by councils in housing matters but with Catholics at the bottom of the pile.

Then from 1968 on the Catholic population mobilised in protest, working class Protestants were largely paid off by having access to jobs usually low paid and kept in fear by being told the Catholics were uprising for a united Ireland.  The state reacted badly to being confronted.

However, the McCrory Report in 1970 signalled the end of the institutionalised discrimination by providing all with votes in local government and dismantling the apparatus of the state away from discriminating unionist dominated councils. In 1971 the N.Ireland Housing Executive was formed, taking public housing away from discriminating councils. The Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 replaced the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. This replaced the 6 county councils and two borough councils with 26 local councils and ended much of the gerrymandering.

So, from 1972, all citizens of N.Ireland had equal rights in housing, education and local government. By 1976, the Fair Employment Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion and established a Fair Employment Agency.

So, from the early 70s discrimination had been removed from institutions and democratic bodies but the same people were still in most civil service and local government jobs and catholics had to resort to legal routes to work their way to top in these areas.

Therefore, all talk of discrimination by the state after the early 70s is largely inaccurate, it still existed with some individuals unless challenged using the agencies that had been created by the UK government.  The problem from early 70s lies with the greater segregation and polarisation of the population caused by the on-going violence of the IRA and UVF/UDA.  From early 70s anyone can get a job or a house or an education anywhere but they will not feel comfortable in the segregated society that has formed.  Polarisation of the communities has become much sharper over the last 40 years and whole populations have moved to make new small towns and some people have been moved in the ethnic cleansing (N.Ireland style) that occurred in the 30 year conflict.

Are you having a laugh??

If you read what I have written you will see that the institutions to remove discrimination as provided from the McCrory Report removed the main elements of state which were in place to allow discrimination.  As I have stated the issue of discrimination remaining was down to the people in state organisation and businesses who continued to discriminate and break the law in doing so. 

Up until the NIHE, ELBs, Fair Employment act and the local government act, all from earlier 70s, it was not illegal for state bodies and business to discriminate in the fields of housing, education and employment. 

The safeguards that ensure discrimination on a religious basis as had happened from the beginning of N.Ireland are no longer acceptable or legal in 2017 were in place from early 70s.  That is a fact.  Did discrimination still occur, yes, but it could be contested, beaten and compensated for thanks to the new institutions and parliamentary acts put in place from early 70s.

Does discrimination still occur in 2017, yes it does but by both sides of the community and those affected have the legal right of challenge and recompense thanks to the laws enacted in 1970's and amended on occasions since then to make them broader and more effective.

There is nothing introduced since the early 1970s that has suddenly made discrimination disappear apart from amendments and improvements to the existing legislation.

Don't tell me you've been taken in by the "few rotten apples" shite.

There were many rotten apples in the administration of N.Ireland after the new laws and institutions and not least in the RUC but in the fields of education, housing and employment, every citizen had the right to challenge discrimination and seek recompense.

Discrimination did not end, as I have stated it continues today but both sides are guilty on many of the occasions on which is occurs on the basis of religion.  In 2017, Protestants find their paths blocked as often as Catholics when it comes to employment.

I am not saying that collusion did not occur, of course it did and innocent people were killed and injured as a result but that occurred after the early 1970s when it is now being re-written by some that the IRA was fighting the state on behalf of an oppressed and discriminated population when in fact all safeguards to prevent the behaviour of the state from 1920 until 1972 in relation to social issues were firmly in place.

It doesn't matter how many safeguards were written in the statute book.  It's TOTALLY irrelevant when the ultimate agents responsible for ensuring these safeguards were upheld were actively not enforcing them.

Simply put, discrimination was rife up until the late 90's.  The fact that they "said" they were going to stop in the 70's is neither here nor there.

That's nonsense, the laws were in place and legal aid was available, unions were geared up and ready to go to tribunals on behalf of their members.  No one was required to uphold the safeguards, employment tribunals consisted of an independent chair usually a legal expert, a person from the union side and a person from an employers background.  No lawyers were or are required at tribunals so any one could represent themselves or by their union.  Manners were put on employers from the moment the Fair Employment legislation was put on the books.  There was no one to stand in the way of employment laws or to put obstacles in the way of anyone wishing to use them to deal with discrimination in employment.  So, you are wrong. Some of the best employment law firms in N.Ireland cut their teeth representing people discriminated against from the implementation of the fair Employment Act.

The NIHE removed discrimination from housing by introducing transparent points system for allocation of houses, no longer the prerogative of politicians or unionist biased administrators.  They may not have got it right every time but with the local government act, nationalist councillors had access to the decision making process.  The polarisation of the population helped in many ways as Catholic only wanted to live among other Catholics so they were no longer competing for the same houses with Protestants and losing like the famous case in Caledon highlighting the discrimination rife in the old county council system.  The issue with NIHE came when it bought land to build more houses and it wasn't always possible to get the same amount of land in some Catholic and Protestant areas because West Belfast was so hemmed in but relieved when NIHE was allowed to develop Poleglass whereas East Belfast had more room to expand into North Down.  NIHE was also populated with a fair distribution of Catholic and Protestant administrators even to the highest levels. 

In education, the ELBs brought in maintained schools status for Catholic schools but had to persuade the Catholic Church to work with them, this provided 100% funding for all schools by the beginning of 1980s with the delay due to the Church opposition not some bogey men as you would prefer.  ELBs were managed by administrators whose religion rejected their catchment area and many Catholics led them and had positions of authority in them from the beginning as they were new institutions.

The introduction of the anti discrimination laws meant that everyone had legal protection from discrimination in housing, education and employment.  Armed with a solicitor and legal aid or a union representative no one had to suffer from discrimination in any of these social areas.

As I said above discrimination didn't end with new laws but it allowed the individual to challenge it with the law at his/her back.  What did increase in the 1990s was discrimination of the Protestant population by Catholic firms or Catholics in positions in businesses or other organisation or local government or education.

Quote from: Franko
The fact that they "said" they were going to stop in the 70's is neither here nor there.

No one "said" they were going to stop in the 70's, laws were put on the statute book and Catholics were able to challenge discrimination in housing, education or employment knowing that the law was on their side and they had their own solicitors and unions to back them up.

And what I said was that it's totally irrelevant what laws were written in the early 70's.  Discrimination was still rife.  End of story.

Have you any stats to back up your big assertion about the 90's?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 11, 2017, 10:46:42 AM
Laws are all very fine, but if the nature of an organisation is that you have to sue to be treated fairly do you really want to work there?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 11, 2017, 11:00:16 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 09, 2017, 05:01:38 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 09, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on December 07, 2017, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 07, 2017, 03:58:18 PM
Branching off a bit here, but with Fair Employment introduced which enabled more Catholics to get certain jobs. Now that's in place, has even those Catholics been forced down the list and LBGT's taken priority for jobs? Just a thought.

A terrible, regressive thought that ignores the very basic laws of recruitment. Do you think a gay person has their sexuality tattooed on their forehead or something?

If you're going to try to vaguely target a minority group at least spell it right.

It's an acronym. You cant "spell" an acronym.

Well, if a gay thought by declaring they were gay on a form (which I presume is an option these days), they might declare it if they thought it would increase their chances.
You are an offensive moron.

What's offensive about that?
Seriously?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on December 11, 2017, 01:24:49 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 11, 2017, 10:31:57 AM


And what I said was that it's totally irrelevant what laws were written in the early 70's.  Discrimination was still rife.  End of story.

Have you any stats to back up your big assertion about the 90's?

What stats do you have to say that discrimination was rife until the late 90s?

What brought this sudden end to discrimination from the late 90s?

Check out the results of the tribunals that are now on line to see the level and type of discrimination:

https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx (https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx)

With laws in place from early 70s anyone who believed they were discriminated against was able to take their case to a Tribunal at no cost to themselves and with the support of a solicitor or union.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 11, 2017, 01:51:55 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 11, 2017, 01:24:49 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 11, 2017, 10:31:57 AM


And what I said was that it's totally irrelevant what laws were written in the early 70's.  Discrimination was still rife.  End of story.

Have you any stats to back up your big assertion about the 90's?

What stats do you have to say that discrimination was rife until the late 90s?

What brought this sudden end to discrimination from the late 90s?

Check out the results of the tribunals that are now on line to see the level and type of discrimination:

https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx (https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx)

With laws in place from early 70s anyone who believed they were discriminated against was able to take their case to a Tribunal at no cost to themselves and with the support of a solicitor or union.

Is that a serious question?

Here's a stat for you:

In 1992, the unemployment rate for Catholics was TWICE as high as that in the Protestant community.  In 1992.  This is approximately 20 YEARS after you said that discrimination had ended.  Maybe the Catholics were just lazy.

Also, was the legislation not enacted in 1976?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnneycool on December 11, 2017, 02:52:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 11, 2017, 01:51:55 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 11, 2017, 01:24:49 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 11, 2017, 10:31:57 AM


And what I said was that it's totally irrelevant what laws were written in the early 70's.  Discrimination was still rife.  End of story.

Have you any stats to back up your big assertion about the 90's?

What stats do you have to say that discrimination was rife until the late 90s?

What brought this sudden end to discrimination from the late 90s?

Check out the results of the tribunals that are now on line to see the level and type of discrimination:

https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx (https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx)

With laws in place from early 70s anyone who believed they were discriminated against was able to take their case to a Tribunal at no cost to themselves and with the support of a solicitor or union.

Is that a serious question?

Here's a stat for you:

In 1992, the unemployment rate for Catholics was TWICE as high as that in the Protestant community.  In 1992.  This is approximately 20 YEARS after you said that discrimination had ended.  Maybe the Catholics were just lazy.

Also, was the legislation not enacted in 1976?


The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 came into place as the name suggests in 1998.

I wasn't aware of anything prior to that or if there was why was there a need for the 1998 version?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on December 11, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 11, 2017, 01:51:55 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 11, 2017, 01:24:49 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 11, 2017, 10:31:57 AM


And what I said was that it's totally irrelevant what laws were written in the early 70's.  Discrimination was still rife.  End of story.

Have you any stats to back up your big assertion about the 90's?

What stats do you have to say that discrimination was rife until the late 90s?

What brought this sudden end to discrimination from the late 90s?

Check out the results of the tribunals that are now on line to see the level and type of discrimination:

https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx (https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx)

With laws in place from early 70s anyone who believed they were discriminated against was able to take their case to a Tribunal at no cost to themselves and with the support of a solicitor or union.

Is that a serious question?

Here's a stat for you:

In 1992, the unemployment rate for Catholics was TWICE as high as that in the Protestant community.  In 1992.  This is approximately 20 YEARS after you said that discrimination had ended.  Maybe the Catholics were just lazy.

Also, was the legislation not enacted in 1976?

I mean obviously from 1976 the unionists were keeping detailed figures of their misrule and discrimination, all of which they have published to show them for the belligerent occupants they have been, which can be accessed at the click of a button and reproduced ad nauseam. Because they're good like that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 11, 2017, 08:08:44 PM
http://www.thejournal.ie/high-court-irish-state-border-poll-3744821-Dec2017/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 12, 2017, 08:53:16 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on December 11, 2017, 02:52:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 11, 2017, 01:51:55 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on December 11, 2017, 01:24:49 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 11, 2017, 10:31:57 AM


And what I said was that it's totally irrelevant what laws were written in the early 70's.  Discrimination was still rife.  End of story.

Have you any stats to back up your big assertion about the 90's?

What stats do you have to say that discrimination was rife until the late 90s?

What brought this sudden end to discrimination from the late 90s?

Check out the results of the tribunals that are now on line to see the level and type of discrimination:

https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx (https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearchResults.aspx)

With laws in place from early 70s anyone who believed they were discriminated against was able to take their case to a Tribunal at no cost to themselves and with the support of a solicitor or union.

Is that a serious question?

Here's a stat for you:

In 1992, the unemployment rate for Catholics was TWICE as high as that in the Protestant community.  In 1992.  This is approximately 20 YEARS after you said that discrimination had ended.  Maybe the Catholics were just lazy.

Also, was the legislation not enacted in 1976?


The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 came into place as the name suggests in 1998.

I wasn't aware of anything prior to that or if there was why was there a need for the 1998 version?

Just a cut and paste from some .gov.uk site.

"The Fair Employment Acts 1976 and 1989, which outlawed discrimination in employment on grounds
of religious belief and political opinion, were repealed and their provisions re-enacted, brought
together and added to in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which
came into operation on 1 March 1999. The 1998 Order was subsequently amended by the Fair
Employment and Treatment Order (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2003 to implement the EU
Framework Employment Directive.
"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 12, 2017, 10:09:49 AM
What sort of changes would nationalists want in a UI? 20 years ago the south was seen as socially conservative. Apart from abortion this seems to have been addressed .
What else needs to be done in Dublin.?


I think the state is far too centralised.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 12, 2017, 10:58:39 AM
If you believe Tony they'll want stricter limits on abortion and the abolition of same sex marriage.
The future All Ireland political entity will be a Confederation of two semi autonomous areas - present 26 and 6 Cos.
The terms of the GFA will continue to apply in the 6 Cos e.g Dual Irish and British citizenship (if "Britain"still exists then).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on December 13, 2017, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on December 12, 2017, 10:09:49 AM
What sort of changes would nationalists want in a UI? 20 years ago the south was seen as socially conservative. Apart from abortion this seems to have been addressed .
What else needs to be done in Dublin.?


I think the state is far too centralised.

Serious reform of the Guards (and elements of the PSNI)??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 13, 2017, 10:43:49 AM
Quote from: seafoid on December 12, 2017, 10:09:49 AM
What sort of changes would nationalists want in a UI? 20 years ago the south was seen as socially conservative. Apart from abortion this seems to have been addressed .
What else needs to be done in Dublin.?


I think the state is far too centralised.

The addition of an element of Belfast control should help with decentralisation.  Although I appreciate that's not doing much for the wesht.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 18, 2017, 07:29:26 PM
Don't hold your breath lads.Fianna Fail have now postponed their plans to field candidates in the North in 2019,lest it be perceived as a (wait for it) "Nationalist takeover" amidst the uncertainty over Brexit! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂.

I have heard it all now! Surely this ends the delusion of a United Ireland?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 18, 2017, 07:47:28 PM
To a certain extent, they're putting the bigger picture before the party because that is exactly how it would be seen by unionists. As you well know. I'm also doubtful as to how successful they would be up here unless they merged with the DUP.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 18, 2017, 08:04:34 PM
We'll be that logic a referendum in the North on reunification must now be regarded as a Nationalist takeover which will never be allowed by Dublin's official Republican Party!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on December 18, 2017, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 12, 2017, 10:58:39 AM
If you believe Tony they'll want stricter limits on abortion and the abolition of same sex marriage.
The future All Ireland political entity will be a Confederation of two semi autonomous areas - present 26 and 6 Cos.
The terms of the GFA will continue to apply in the 6 Cos e.g Dual Irish and British citizenship (if "Britain"still exists then).
What's the point then? Doesn't sound much different to current  situation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on December 18, 2017, 08:18:19 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on December 18, 2017, 07:47:28 PM
To a certain extent, they're putting the bigger picture before the party because that is exactly how it would be seen by unionists. As you well know. I'm also doubtful as to how successful they would be up here unless they merged with the DUP.

No way. Fine Gael already called dibs on merging with the DUP.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 18, 2017, 09:19:07 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 18, 2017, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 12, 2017, 10:58:39 AM
If you believe Tony they'll want stricter limits on abortion and the abolition of same sex marriage.
The future All Ireland political entity will be a Confederation of two semi autonomous areas - present 26 and 6 Cos.
The terms of the GFA will continue to apply in the 6 Cos e.g Dual Irish and British citizenship (if "Britain"still exists then).
What's the point then? Doesn't sound much different to current  situation.
All Ireland will be a sovereign State.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on December 18, 2017, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on December 18, 2017, 08:18:19 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on December 18, 2017, 07:47:28 PM
To a certain extent, they're putting the bigger picture before the party because that is exactly how it would be seen by unionists. As you well know. I'm also doubtful as to how successful they would be up here unless they merged with the DUP.

No way. Fine Gael already called dibs on merging with the DUP.

Oops! Meant to say SDLP.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on December 18, 2017, 10:17:51 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on December 18, 2017, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on December 18, 2017, 08:18:19 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on December 18, 2017, 07:47:28 PM
To a certain extent, they're putting the bigger picture before the party because that is exactly how it would be seen by unionists. As you well know. I'm also doubtful as to how successful they would be up here unless they merged with the DUP.

No way. Fine Gael already called dibs on merging with the DUP.

Oops! Meant to say SDLP.

Is there a difference?? ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 19, 2017, 10:35:20 AM
Last Lucid Talk poll showed Unionism 1 point ahead of Nationalism with 10% or so alliance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Horse Box on December 19, 2017, 11:33:41 AM
I refer you all to questio 5 , you`ll have to scroll down a bit :

http://lucidtalk.co.uk/images/News/LTDec17TrackerPoll-GUENGLProjectReportF.pdf
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 19, 2017, 05:21:21 PM
https://ianjamesparsley.wordpress.com/2017/12/19/dup-destroy-the-union-party/

I would agree with much of this article in the sense that the DUP is run by middle class wealthy educated people yet it preys on the fears and insecurities of ordinary working class protestants and is able to maintain the status quo by continuing to do so. It's as much about power, domination, control and personal status as it is about their own people's daily lives for many of these charlatans.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 01:01:16 PM
For the benefit of those who claim to be Nationalists but are stuck in a partitioning mindset and also stuck in the 19 30s -
The Irish Free State went out of existence EIGHTY YEARS AGO today.

#OTD in Irish History – 29 December:  stairnaheireann.net
Constitution Day (Ireland)


1937 – The new Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) repealed the 1922 Constitution, and came into effect on this date, after having been passed by a national plebiscite the previous July.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on December 29, 2017, 01:37:22 PM
Interesting poll yesterday.
Quote.     "If it cost the Irish government €9 billion per annum for Northern Ireland to unite with the Republic of Ireland, how would you vote in relation to a referendum on a United Ireland?"

60-40 in favor

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/897526/brexit-irish-border-poll-united-ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 01:59:52 PM
More wasted discussion on something that will never happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: lenny on December 29, 2017, 03:03:56 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 01:59:52 PM
More wasted discussion on something that will never happen.

It will certainly happen, just a matter of when. Brexit has made it more likely to happen much sooner than previously expected. It might take 10 years or it might be 40 but it will inevitably happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 01:01:16 PM
For the benefit of those who claim to be Nationalists but are stuck in a partitioning mindset and also stuck in the 19 30s -
The Irish Free State went out of existence EIGHTY YEARS AGO today.

#OTD in Irish History – 29 December:  stairnaheireann.net
Constitution Day (Ireland)


1937 – The new Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) repealed the 1922 Constitution, and came into effect on this date, after having been passed by a national plebiscite the previous July.

Sure - we were completely sold down the river in December 1921. So those bits afterwards don't matter that much.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: foxcommander on December 29, 2017, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 01:01:16 PM
For the benefit of those who claim to be Nationalists but are stuck in a partitioning mindset and also stuck in the 19 30s -
The Irish Free State went out of existence EIGHTY YEARS AGO today.

#OTD in Irish History – 29 December:  stairnaheireann.net
Constitution Day (Ireland)


1937 – The new Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) repealed the 1922 Constitution, and came into effect on this date, after having been passed by a national plebiscite the previous July.

Sure - we were completely sold down the river in December 1921. So those bits afterwards don't matter that much.

That's totally irrelevant. Just stop hurting his feelings by saying he's a freestater. As he mentioned it was all resolved by the stroke of a pen 80 years ago.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 29, 2017, 04:33:04 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 29, 2017, 03:07:33 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 01:59:52 PM
More wasted discussion on something that will never happen.
Like discussing what will or won't gain you entry into heaven.

Touche  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on December 29, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 01:01:16 PM
For the benefit of those who claim to be Nationalists but are stuck in a partitioning mindset and also stuck in the 19 30s -
The Irish Free State went out of existence EIGHTY YEARS AGO today.

#OTD in Irish History – 29 December:  stairnaheireann.net
Constitution Day (Ireland)


1937 – The new Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) repealed the 1922 Constitution, and came into effect on this date, after having been passed by a national plebiscite the previous July.

Sure - we were completely sold down the river in December 1921. So those bits afterwards don't matter that much.

But if that hadnt happened what could ye use to justify the big chips on your shoulders?
In any case it took ye a long time to do anything about it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 06:36:28 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on December 29, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 01:01:16 PM
For the benefit of those who claim to be Nationalists but are stuck in a partitioning mindset and also stuck in the 19 30s -
The Irish Free State went out of existence EIGHTY YEARS AGO today.

#OTD in Irish History – 29 December:  stairnaheireann.net
Constitution Day (Ireland)


1937 – The new Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) repealed the 1922 Constitution, and came into effect on this date, after having been passed by a national plebiscite the previous July.

Sure - we were completely sold down the river in December 1921. So those bits afterwards don't matter that much.

But if that hadnt happened what could ye use to justify the big chips on your shoulders?
In any case it took ye a long time to do anything about it

We were waiting for you lot to sort out the 26 county theocracy situation first. Took ye long enough to make a start on that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 07:03:47 PM
Ye'd want to sort out ye're own theocracy before we'll let ye join us.
It's one of Tony's proudest boasts that Nordies are so much less secular than us 26 Co folk.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on December 29, 2017, 07:10:52 PM
I don't go to mass any more but one of the last masses i was at was a 26 county priest preaching on how secular we had become...(with powerpoint slides and everything...)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 07:22:22 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 07:03:47 PM
It's one of Tony's proudest boasts that he is so much less secular & sane than us 26 Co folk.

That's nearer the truth.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 02:51:51 PM
Some interesting figures in the latest Lucid Talk poll in the wee 6.

First preference votes (Feb 2018)

DUP:  33.6%
SF:     32.4%
UUP:  10.3%
SDLP:  8.6%
ALL:  8.0%
TUV:  2.3%
GRN:  1.9%
PBP:  1.7%

Age Breakdown: Aged: 18-44

SF:  38.7%
DUP:  29.2%%
SDLP:  9.1%
UUP:  8.6%
ALL:  7.8%

Some food for thought for Unionists there...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:58:00 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 02:51:51 PM
Some interesting figures in the latest Lucid Talk poll in the wee 6.

First preference votes (Feb 2018)

DUP:  33.6%
SF:     32.4%
UUP:  10.3%
SDLP:  8.6%
ALL:  8.0%
TUV:  2.3%
GRN:  1.9%
PBP:  1.7%

Age Breakdown: Aged: 18-44

SF:  38.7%
DUP:  29.2%%
SDLP:  9.1%
UUP:  8.6%
ALL:  7.8%

Some food for thought for Unionists there...

"DUP call for eligible voting age to be raised to 45."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
In 20 years the two big nationalist parties would be 45% (36+8) and the two big unionist parties 40% (31+9). Now you'd had TUVS, PBPs and so on as well. But clearly nationalism is the bigger block. The belief always was that the middle ground would stick with the status quo, but Brexit has shown that the status quo isn't always entirely stable.

Interesting times, indeed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 03:43:24 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
In 20 years the two big nationalist parties would be 45% (36+8) and the two big unionist parties 40% (31+9). Now you'd had TUVS, PBPs and so on as well. But clearly nationalism is the bigger block. The belief always was that the middle ground would stick with the status quo, but Brexit has shown that the status quo isn't always entirely stable.

Interesting times, indeed.

What this doesnt take into account is that the majority of those passing the 18 mark are Nationalists, mostly SF. So the difference in 20 years will be greater than it looks here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 03:44:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
In 20 years the two big nationalist parties would be 45% (36+8) and the two big unionist parties 40% (31+9). Now you'd had TUVS, PBPs and so on as well. But clearly nationalism is the bigger block. The belief always was that the middle ground would stick with the status quo, but Brexit has shown that the status quo isn't always entirely stable.

Interesting times, indeed.

If I were Arlene and Doddsie I'd dust off that agreement they ran away from sharpish!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 03:47:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 03:43:24 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
In 20 years the two big nationalist parties would be 45% (36+8) and the two big unionist parties 40% (31+9). Now you'd had TUVS, PBPs and so on as well. But clearly nationalism is the bigger block. The belief always was that the middle ground would stick with the status quo, but Brexit has shown that the status quo isn't always entirely stable.

Interesting times, indeed.

What this doesnt take into account is that the majority of those passing the 18 mark are Nationalists, mostly SF. So the difference in 20 years will be greater than it looks here.

It does, more or less, take this into account.
Basically I am assuming that in 40 years time the current 18-44 figures will be the proportion and 20 years is half way there.

Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 03:44:30 PM
If I were Arlene and Doddsie I'd dust off that agreement they ran away from sharpish!

Yet, the U105 discussion showed that DUP supporters had hardened against the Irish language act, although the DUP had lost some voters. This is their problem, unlike  SF they have done nothing to prepare their lot for change, so they become more extreme and some of the more reasonable people simply stop voting for them. The unionists have lost their way, instead of making NI a reasonably balanced place so that you wouldn't be bothered with a united Ireland they have beaten the Lambeg drum louder, this makes the ultras feel better but it also means that nationalists and even middle of the road people find NI intolerable. They do not have the leadership to change, when even the likes of Paisley was overthrown.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 05, 2018, 03:53:02 PM
Irrelevant figures. Whether it's SF or DUP with the greater votes, they still won't agree on nothing.

There's a million unionists in the North or near it. Do you think they're just going to go away overnight?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 03:56:03 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2018, 03:53:02 PM
Irrelevant figures. Whether it's SF or DUP with the greater votes, they still won't agree on nothing.

There's a million unionists in the North or near it. Do you think they're just going to go away overnight?

Some will go away, rather than live in a united  Ireland. The rest will get on with it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2018, 03:53:02 PM
Irrelevant figures. Whether it's SF or DUP with the greater votes, they still won't agree on nothing.

There's a million unionists in the North or near it. Do you think they're just going to go away overnight?

If they're as democratic as they tell us they are then they'll accept the will of the voting public.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 05, 2018, 04:08:56 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 02:51:51 PM
Some interesting figures in the latest Lucid Talk poll in the wee 6.

First preference votes (Feb 2018)

DUP:  33.6%
SF:     32.4%
UUP:  10.3%
SDLP:  8.6%
ALL:  8.0%
TUV:  2.3%
GRN:  1.9%
PBP:  1.7%

Age Breakdown: Aged: 18-44

SF:  38.7%
DUP:  29.2%%
SDLP:  9.1%
UUP:  8.6%
ALL:  7.8%

Some food for thought for Unionists there...

I think this shows that the dreaded "demographic bomb" that many Unionists politicians feared (but claimed wouldn't happen) could come around quicker than they thought.  To tackle this the onus is now on Unionism to act.  Nationalists parties just have to avoid dropping the ball (Keep the sliced pans off the heads, worst nutters off twitter) and they will get their majority.

For example the DUP should be embracing Irish, rights issues etc.  to make sure that they make their vision of Northern Ireland attractive to as many people as possible.  Instead they are battening down the hatches in case of losing a few nutters to the TUV.  You would wonder what informs their strategists.

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 05, 2018, 04:39:46 PM
Jim is correct. But the Unionist psyche is such that they'd rather lose all than give ground. There may be 1m unionists in 20 years time but there will be 1.2 m nationalists and they will have to face up to it. The GFA though was designed in such a way that roles would reverse but the institutions remain, if they ever get started again. In those circumstances I hope nationalists show more generosity than currently being displayed by unionism.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 05, 2018, 04:40:11 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 03:56:03 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2018, 03:53:02 PM
Irrelevant figures. Whether it's SF or DUP with the greater votes, they still won't agree on nothing.

There's a million unionists in the North or near it. Do you think they're just going to go away overnight?

Some will go away, rather than live in a united  Ireland. The rest will get on with it.

After 400 years of being top dog, I doubt they'll just get on with it. Expect another Troubles era if there's a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 04:41:05 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 05, 2018, 04:08:56 PM
For example the DUP should be embracing Irish, rights issues etc.  to make sure that they make their vision of Northern Ireland attractive to as many people as possible.  Instead they are battening down the hatches in case of losing a few nutters to the TUV.  You would wonder what informs their strategists.

Do they have strategists?
They are informed by their strategic principles; not an inch, no surrender, croppies lie down, Ulster will fight, etc.

However,  they also did the St Andrew's deal which made the largest party First Minister, so are afraid of SF becoming the biggest party, hence they try and kill off the UU and practice extremism to stop people defecting to the TUV. None of this increases the total unionist vote of course and only delays the first minister thing by one election anyhow.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 05, 2018, 05:22:43 PM
The governing/dominant unionist politicians have never had a long term strategy, they are an inward looking group incapable of real leadership of the wider unionist community who are much more capable of inclusion.

At every point in the last 60 years they have grabbed defeat in preference to providing civil rights or displaying generosity towards recognising the cultural aspirations of the minority community while enhancing the bogeyman of uprising or movement towards a united Ireland.

By keeping a narrow political vision they have controlled the agenda for unionism whether UUP and now DUP and imposed their backward social agenda.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 05, 2018, 05:27:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 04:41:05 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 05, 2018, 04:08:56 PM
For example the DUP should be embracing Irish, rights issues etc.  to make sure that they make their vision of Northern Ireland attractive to as many people as possible.  Instead they are battening down the hatches in case of losing a few nutters to the TUV.  You would wonder what informs their strategists.

Do they have strategists?
They are informed by their strategic principles; not an inch, no surrender, croppies lie down, Ulster will fight, etc.

However,  they also did the St Andrew's deal which made the largest party First Minister, so are afraid of SF becoming the biggest party, hence they try and kill off the UU and practice extremism to stop people defecting to the TUV. None of this increases the total unionist vote of course and only delays the first minister thing by one election anyhow.

I presume though that they do hire in external advisors etc.. to formulate strategy.  The key for them to maintain a Northern Ireland state is to create more unionists.  Rearranging the chairs within existing unionists is pretty short term stuff.   I am guessing there is a quite a large swathe of people who are pretty lukewarm either way when it comes to constitutional setup.  A more progressive unionism would keep them in the "status quo" camp.  It really is pure tribalism from anyone that is blind to that.

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 05, 2018, 05:30:41 PM
In 2006 48% of the population of 1.88m were from a Unionist Protestant background.
That's around 900,000 probably down to 850k now and falling.
44% were from a Nationalist/Catholic background c800k.
Probably along 850k now and rising.
Where is the leader in Unionism to tell his or her people that the times they are a changing.

How soon I wonder before they try for a repartition?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 05:40:59 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 05, 2018, 05:27:17 PM
I presume though that they do hire in external advisors etc.. to formulate strategy.  The key for them to maintain a Northern Ireland state is to create more unionists.  Rearranging the chairs within existing unionists is pretty short term stuff.   I am guessing there is a quite a large swathe of people who are pretty lukewarm either way when it comes to constitutional setup.  A more progressive unionism would keep them in the "status quo" camp.  It really is pure tribalism from anyone that is blind to that.

The unionists are like a man whose doctor tells him to lay off the fags, eat more vegetables and look after himself and he'll live for years. In this case to lay off the drum beating bigotry, allow a bit of green stuff and try and be a bit agreeable, and NI will last for years.  But like a late friend of mine, life isn't worth living without the fags and so a shorter life ensues.

Quote from: RossfanHow soon I wonder before they try for a repartition?

Not a great runner, Belfast city will not have a unionist majority and that hollows things out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 05, 2018, 05:56:24 PM
Those 120k (or more?) nationalists in Belfast would put a spoke in that wheel alright.
The obvious future in the "Northern Ireland Autonomous Region" would be to have 3 sub divisions with some powers - "West and South", " North and East" and Belfast.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 06:41:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 05, 2018, 05:56:24 PM
Those 120k (or more?) nationalists in Belfast would put a spoke in that wheel alright.
The obvious future in the "Northern Ireland Autonomous Region" would be to have 3 sub divisions with some powers - "West and South", " North and East" and Belfast.

They'd have to accept gay marriage and abortion before they'd get at our purse strings.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 05, 2018, 07:09:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 06:41:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 05, 2018, 05:56:24 PM
Those 120k (or more?) nationalists in Belfast would put a spoke in that wheel alright.
The obvious future in the "Northern Ireland Autonomous Region" would be to have 3 sub divisions with some powers - "West and South", " North and East" and Belfast.

They'd have to accept gay marriage and abortion before they'd get at our purse strings.

Haven't enough people died?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 05, 2018, 07:46:51 PM
Didn't know we had "accepted" abortion? ??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 07:49:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 05, 2018, 07:46:51 PM
Didn't know we had "accepted" abortion? ??

You must have missed the memo. It'll be on the books long before unification is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 05, 2018, 09:06:51 PM
These results should represent a wake up call to unionism.

But not in the sense that a United Ireland is in any way more imminent. You would need a second data set demonstrating the link between saying you would vote SF or SDLP and actually voting for a United Ireland in a future referendum. You would also need a third data set on whether the people of RoI would vote in a referendum to take them in.

The wake up call for unionism is more to do with the running the place. A few less red lines would be a start

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 05, 2018, 09:16:38 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 07:49:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 05, 2018, 07:46:51 PM
Didn't know we had "accepted" abortion? ??

You must have missed the memo. It'll be on the books long before unification is.
What memo?
Last I heard the Government were planning to introduce a Referendum to enable people to vote  to drop or keep Art 40/3/3 of an Bunreacht.
I'll wait and see how that goes.

(Unkind thought -can abortion be made retrospective? )
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 06, 2018, 09:55:56 AM
To Unionists, SF or Nationalists having an overall majority in NI is probably worse than a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on March 06, 2018, 10:03:22 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 06, 2018, 09:55:56 AM
To Unionists, SF or Nationalists having an overall majority in NI is probably worse than a UI.


That is true, but they are that insular they wont see it. To them a United Ireland means Gerry as President, daily recitals of a Soldiers Song, and mandatory mass attendances 7 days a week. Half of them have never been to Dublin, save maybe once for the airport when they swallowed the bitter pill to save themselves a few pound.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Ty4Sam on March 06, 2018, 10:05:21 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 06, 2018, 10:03:22 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 06, 2018, 09:55:56 AM
To Unionists, SF or Nationalists having an overall majority in NI is probably worse than a UI.


That is true, but they are that insular they wont see it. To them a United Ireland means Gerry as President, daily recitals of a Soldiers Song, and mandatory mass attendances 7 days a week. Half of them have never been to Dublin, save maybe once for the airport when they swallowed the bitter pill to save themselves a few pound.

Both very fair points.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on March 06, 2018, 10:35:55 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.

This is typical of the attitute. They truly believe Glentoran/Linfield is a bigger occasion than Kilkenny/Tipperary in the hurling or Dublin/Kerry in the football. There should be some sort of outreach program by the GAA to bring them into the fold as part of a civic movement towards a United Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 06, 2018, 11:16:09 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 06, 2018, 10:35:55 AM

This is typical of the attitute. They truly believe Glentoran/Linfield is a bigger occasion than Kilkenny/Tipperary in the hurling or Dublin/Kerry in the football. There should be some sort of outreach program by the GAA to bring them into the fold as part of a civic movement towards a United Ireland.

Probably one of the wisest solutions proposed on this Board.  Yet achieving such a movement is permanently compromised by the SF protest movement.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 06, 2018, 11:30:15 AM
Weren't a number of bigots very upset over Ballymoney High School asking lads to play hurling??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omagh_gael on March 06, 2018, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 06, 2018, 11:16:09 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 06, 2018, 10:35:55 AM

This is typical of the attitute. They truly believe Glentoran/Linfield is a bigger occasion than Kilkenny/Tipperary in the hurling or Dublin/Kerry in the football. There should be some sort of outreach program by the GAA to bring them into the fold as part of a civic movement towards a United Ireland.

Probably one of the wisest solutions proposed on this Board.  Yet achieving such a movement is permanently compromised by the SF protest movement.

I remember going down to Omagh Academicals rugby club with Omagh St Endas GAA and playing one half GAA and the second half rugby. It was around 20 years ago as I was around u14. It wasn't a big deal for me as I had joined the local integrated primary school when it opened in the early 90s and stayed in integrated education to 7th year. However, some of the other lads (on both sides) got a real eye opener and really enjoyed it.

The GAA, in the North, should develop a province wide initiative on the same principles. Coaches from each discipline spend time with the opposite sport teaching simple rules of the game. Have a half/half game with simplified rules (e.g. touch rugby, GAA minus the toe pick up etc). Sport, as a vehicle, should be used to break barriers. It would decrease immediate fears and biases and, potentially, in the long term be a small chip away at the fear of what a United Ireland may look like.

The fear of the unknown is crippling our society and simple mixing and engagement would serve all sides.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hereiam on March 06, 2018, 11:57:44 AM
The only way you could promotes the GAA to the other side of the community in the north is through the media outlets, and lets face it this wont be allowed to happen any time soon.
There is no point relying on social media etc as people's feeds are personalised to there on interests.
They need to have full access to it in their front living rooms on the main TV Stations and radio Stations to start making them more aware of it.
I brief mention of it in news bulletins will just not cut it.
Even for our own younger generation in the north it should be given more air time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 01:03:43 PM
The GAA need to look after their own first. The only people who aren't looked after in terms of playing for the enjoyment is the local Irish.

Kids teams from no age are all about winning, and once you get to a certain age, 14,16,18,21, senior, it's elitist. If you're not prepared to train 3,4,5 nights a week or have the stamina of mo farah you're tossed to the side. Youngsters never see play because they just aren't good enough. It's nothing about giving kids a game, inclusivity etc. it's all about winning.

The clubs abroad cater for Irish diaspora of all abilities plus the locals in that country. Regardless of ability, it's about enjoyment. It annoys me when the suits go abroad and show how great the gaa is, but thousands of people are tossed to the side in their own country because they're not treated right.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2018, 03:53:02 PM
Irrelevant figures. Whether it's SF or DUP with the greater votes, they still won't agree on nothing.

There's a million unionists in the North or near it. Do you think they're just going to go away overnight?

If they're as democratic as they tell us they are then they'll accept the will of the voting public.

A bit like Brexit?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 01:16:06 PM
http://ulster.gaa.ie/2017/03/banbridge-cuchulainns-capture-ulster-gaa-cuchulainn-cup-2017/


The GAA in Ulster are already trying to reach out in cross-community events and competitions. The biggest problem is probably the naming of GAA grounds and clubs, which is (understandably, to be fair) used as a stick to beat the GAA with and off putting for large numbers of the unionist community.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 06, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
No matter about social contributions from the GAA or whatever, the 6 counties will never be properly normalised until education is integrated.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Minder on March 06, 2018, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 06, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
No matter about social contributions from the GAA or whatever, the 6 counties will never be properly normalised until education is integrated.

Yep, 100% right and there is no appetite for it on either side
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 06, 2018, 01:33:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 06, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
No matter about social contributions from the GAA or whatever, the 6 counties will never be properly normalised until education is integrated.

Catholic Church is an insurmountable roadblock to any changes in education system.

Polarisation of housing makes it difficult to change the system without building even more spare capacity into the system to allow integrated schools to grow by stripping pupils out of nearby Catholic schools.

If the Catholic Church managed to remove academic selection in more schools then more parents would choose to go to non-denominational grammar schools.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omagh_gael on March 06, 2018, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 06, 2018, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 06, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
No matter about social contributions from the GAA or whatever, the 6 counties will never be properly normalised until education is integrated.

Yep, 100% right and there is no appetite for it on either side

Integrated education is the only way forward, I was the first person in Omagh to begin primary school education and go the whole way through to 7th year in Drumragh college when it opened in 1995. It was an excellent experience.

Mnder, don't fully agree with your sentiment. I don't know the story in other parts of the north but Drumragh is the only school in Omagh that has to turn down applications. In fact, they secured funding to increase capacity just last year. 

http://ulsterherald.com/2017/09/22/drumragh-college-gets-approval-increase-enrolment/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 02:07:08 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2018, 03:53:02 PM
Irrelevant figures. Whether it's SF or DUP with the greater votes, they still won't agree on nothing.

There's a million unionists in the North or near it. Do you think they're just going to go away overnight?

If they're as democratic as they tell us they are then they'll accept the will of the voting public.

A bit like Brexit?

To an extent, yes.

One side views the will of the people the entire UK and the other side view the Brexit vote as being the will of the 6 counties.

It's all about boundaries and how well gerrymandered they are  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 02:12:31 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 02:07:08 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:57:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 05, 2018, 03:53:02 PM
Irrelevant figures. Whether it's SF or DUP with the greater votes, they still won't agree on nothing.

There's a million unionists in the North or near it. Do you think they're just going to go away overnight?

If they're as democratic as they tell us they are then they'll accept the will of the voting public.

A bit like Brexit?

To an extent, yes.

One side views the will of the people the entire UK and the other side view the Brexit vote as being the will of the 6 counties.

It's all about boundaries and how well gerrymandered they are  ;)

Look if its the will of the people then it will happen, doesnt mean everyone will thinks its a good idea, just 50.00001 % (if thats an actual % figure) need to, as for the boundaries it wouldnt matter as such!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:20:18 PM
Will of the people, me hole. There was majority support for Home Rule over a century ago. Did it happen?

If there's a border poll, and 51% for a UI, one million unionists will just quietly accept it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 02:23:41 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Would it not be a good idea for the intergrated schools to for a partnership with the other schools for sports? Gaelic football hurling rugby and soccer?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Integrated education is a dilution of anything Irish. As you say, GAA suffers, as will the teaching of Irish history, culture, language etc. These things thrive in catholic schools.

Integrated education is balls. The North is a divided society, people live apart and integrated education won't change that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 02:47:49 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Integrated education is a dilution of anything Irish. As you say, GAA suffers, as will the teaching of Irish history, culture, language etc. These things thrive in catholic schools.

Integrated education is balls. The North is a divided society, people live apart and integrated education won't change that.

So you'd prefer to drive the wedge further rather than dealing with intergraded education of Irish history and games? Improve on that aspect and come to an arrangement with the topics, Irish History up to fith year was for me was, The Famine, Vicking raids, the Blitz of Belfast.. struggling to remember now if we did anything on 1916 or the troubles, doubt it.. a lot of the World wars mainly and the usual crap at first year on castles ffs!

In our school also you either did Irish or French, you didnt choose either as it was just the luck of the draw, I'd say it didnt dilute the Irishness of the kids that went to the school. As for hurling and football we learnt more at the club than school.. That was a typical Falls road school, I even knew schools that didnt have a Gaa team in them
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 06, 2018, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Integrated education is a dilution of anything Irish. As you say, GAA suffers, as will the teaching of Irish history, culture, language etc. These things thrive in catholic schools.

Integrated education is balls. The North is a divided society, people live apart and integrated education won't change that.

Integrated education is part of the solution in NI but by no means the be all and end all that it is sometimes held up to be.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 03:04:20 PM
MR2, I'm not saying drive the wedge further.

Two lads are schoolmates. Is the catholic lad comfortable going to his Protestant mates estate adorned with UVF murals, Union flags, painted kerbstones, rangers shirts? Is he comfortable with having a kick around surrounding by that? Are his parents confit table with it? And vice versa for the Protestant lad.

In a neutral environment it's ok, but integrated education ain't going to solve the fact that we are two tribes, totally different in most aspects and way of thinking.

I'm not saying give up totally. But the politics and politicans here have a lot to answer for. Their aim is to keep everything divided, create division and that filters down to both sides. That includes local councillors, MPs, Stormont and Westminster MPs and the British and Irish government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 03:05:55 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 06, 2018, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Integrated education is a dilution of anything Irish. As you say, GAA suffers, as will the teaching of Irish history, culture, language etc. These things thrive in catholic schools.

Integrated education is balls. The North is a divided society, people live apart and integrated education won't change that.

Integrated education is part of the solution in NI but by no means the be all and end all that it is sometimes held up to be.

It depends on how integrated that education is all the same.

I find that GAA is an afterschools activity in the one secondary/comprehensive nearest me, but somehow soccer, rugby and hockey are part of the timetabled PE classes.

The general perception down our way is that schools turn integrated when the numbers are low to keep them open but the ethos doesn't seem to change much.
One of the integrated primary schools near us is informed via email when we're running fundamentals blocks for the P1's and P2's and the principal has never passed that information onto the parents of the kids in the school yet the local tennis club is never done getting stuff sent home in the kids schoolbags!

Maybe I'm paranoid...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 03:05:55 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 06, 2018, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Integrated education is a dilution of anything Irish. As you say, GAA suffers, as will the teaching of Irish history, culture, language etc. These things thrive in catholic schools.

Integrated education is balls. The North is a divided society, people live apart and integrated education won't change that.

Integrated education is part of the solution in NI but by no means the be all and end all that it is sometimes held up to be.

It depends on how integrated that education is all the same.

I find that GAA is an afterschools activity in the one secondary/comprehensive nearest me, but somehow soccer, rugby and hockey are part of the timetabled PE classes.

The general perception down our way is that schools turn integrated when the numbers are low to keep them open but the ethos doesn't seem to change much.
One of the integrated primary schools near us is informed via email when we're running fundamentals blocks for the P1's and P2's and the principal has never passed that information onto the parents of the kids in the school yet the local tennis club is never done getting stuff sent home in the kids schoolbags!

Maybe I'm paranoid...

Look we all know what drives certain sports in schools, if the local club gets involved (my excuse) and picks kids up sorts out sticks, balls and the like, its a win win for the local club as they can filter them into the club, the other is a teacher who is really interested in getting Gaa going in the school, has a passion for it also, principal is looking at budgets and results, nothing else..

It also needs people after school to help out, parents who have the time on their hands to help and extra funding from the education board and of course a set of kids willing to play.. I'm talking primary here as that is were the intrest is started .. secondary then needs to have the same thing, oter benefits are a history of GAA sports and so on..

Now what needs to happen is that in intergrated schools a joined up approach needs to be applied, and all of the intergrated schools should have this as part of their approval to become a proper intergrated school, regardless of the flegs and drawings on the walls, though to be fair there is not much of that about in places of intergration...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Integrated education is a dilution of anything Irish. As you say, GAA suffers, as will the teaching of Irish history, culture, language etc. These things thrive in catholic schools.

Integrated education is balls. The North is a divided society, people live apart and integrated education won't change that.
It's a polarised society. The national anthem only reflects half of the population. There are 2 versions of history. There are 2 identities. It's very hard to write schoolbooks for polarised societies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: paddyjohn on March 06, 2018, 03:37:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 03:05:55 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 06, 2018, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Integrated education is a dilution of anything Irish. As you say, GAA suffers, as will the teaching of Irish history, culture, language etc. These things thrive in catholic schools.

Integrated education is balls. The North is a divided society, people live apart and integrated education won't change that.

Integrated education is part of the solution in NI but by no means the be all and end all that it is sometimes held up to be.

It depends on how integrated that education is all the same.

I find that GAA is an afterschools activity in the one secondary/comprehensive nearest me, but somehow soccer, rugby and hockey are part of the timetabled PE classes.

The general perception down our way is that schools turn integrated when the numbers are low to keep them open but the ethos doesn't seem to change much.
One of the integrated primary schools near us is informed via email when we're running fundamentals blocks for the P1's and P2's and the principal has never passed that information onto the parents of the kids in the school yet the local tennis club is never done getting stuff sent home in the kids schoolbags!

Maybe I'm paranoid...

Look we all know what drives certain sports in schools, if the local club gets involved (my excuse) and picks kids up sorts out sticks, balls and the like, its a win win for the local club as they can filter them into the club, the other is a teacher who is really interested in getting Gaa going in the school, has a passion for it also, principal is looking at budgets and results, nothing else..

It also needs people after school to help out, parents who have the time on their hands to help and extra funding from the education board and of course a set of kids willing to play.. I'm talking primary here as that is were the intrest is started .. secondary then needs to have the same thing, oter benefits are a history of GAA sports and so on..

Now what needs to happen is that in intergrated schools a joined up approach needs to be applied, and all of the intergrated schools should have this as part of their approval to become a proper intergrated school, regardless of the flegs and drawings on the walls, though to be fair there is not much of that about in places of intergration...

https://www.colerainetimes.co.uk/news/education/boys-are-under-pressure-to-play-gaa-at-ballymoney-high-school-1-8386941

I also know a parent who refused to let his son play hurling at an integrated school in Ballymena. Ended up taking his son out of the school.

Sad sad people imo.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: blewuporstuffed on March 06, 2018, 03:44:31 PM
QuoteMr Watton explained parents' concerns with the GAA, saying: "I have no problem with the GAA. It is what it is, but the GAA has a problem in working-class unionist areas. People living in these estates never had anything to do with the GAA, and the GAA never had anything to do with them.

Read more at: https://www.colerainetimes.co.uk/news/education/boys-are-under-pressure-to-play-gaa-at-ballymoney-high-school-1-8386941

So the solution to this is to object to a GAA / school initiative to reach out to those communities?  ???
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 06, 2018, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 06, 2018, 02:19:17 PM
I sent my eldest son to an integrated college. He felt it was balanced enough but his main regret was the lack of Gaelic games available. There just wasn't enough players to get anything meaningful going . I have a lad in p6 who wants to go to the local Catholic comprehensive school as they won Ulster titles at u14 and u16 and he wants the football.

Integrated education is a dilution of anything Irish. As you say, GAA suffers, as will the teaching of Irish history, culture, language etc. These things thrive in catholic schools.

Integrated education is balls. The North is a divided society, people live apart and integrated education won't change that.

Yes, education may harm the GAA from a schools perspective but I believe it's a price that needs paying.  The opportunity is there for anyone who wants to learn Irish history (schools are quite welcome to choose what way subjects are taught and to offer more than one option) or speak the language and also to play Gaelic Games if that's what they want to do.  An ILA will further enable this.

The bit in bold is totally false IMO.  Generally, the first time someone from the north has any major interaction with themmuns is at university or when they enter the world of work.  They've already formed a social circle at that stage, and almost exclusively, it's made up of uss'uns.  Kids need to learn that themmuns aren't to be frightened of in their formative years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 06, 2018, 04:28:10 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with the school system at the minute. How many children from both sides come out of school and are able to integrate into a mixed workplace just fine? As with most things there would be too much aggro associated...consider round Remembrance Day (Poppies), will Easter Lily's be acceptable? No learning of Irish, and the History lessons would be completely warped.

Strangely I seen an earlier post blaming Sinn Fein for the current system...Go figure
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 05:40:55 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 03:04:20 PM
MR2, I'm not saying drive the wedge further.

Two lads are schoolmates. Is the catholic lad comfortable going to his Protestant mates estate adorned with UVF murals, Union flags, painted kerbstones, rangers shirts? Is he comfortable with having a kick around surrounding by that? Are his parents confit table with it? And vice versa for the Protestant lad.

In a neutral environment it's ok, but integrated education ain't going to solve the fact that we are two tribes, totally different in most aspects and way of thinking.

I'm not saying give up totally. But the politics and politicans here have a lot to answer for. Their aim is to keep everything divided, create division and that filters down to both sides. That includes local councillors, MPs, Stormont and Westminster MPs and the British and Irish government.
Err, sounds like it's your aim too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 05:54:02 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 05:40:55 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 03:04:20 PM
MR2, I'm not saying drive the wedge further.

Two lads are schoolmates. Is the catholic lad comfortable going to his Protestant mates estate adorned with UVF murals, Union flags, painted kerbstones, rangers shirts? Is he comfortable with having a kick around surrounding by that? Are his parents confit table with it? And vice versa for the Protestant lad.

In a neutral environment it's ok, but integrated education ain't going to solve the fact that we are two tribes, totally different in most aspects and way of thinking.

I'm not saying give up totally. But the politics and politicans here have a lot to answer for. Their aim is to keep everything divided, create division and that filters down to both sides. That includes local councillors, MPs, Stormont and Westminster MPs and the British and Irish government.
Err, sounds like it's your aim too.

I'm only being realistic. Integrated education aint all it's cracked up to be.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 06, 2018, 05:57:48 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on March 06, 2018, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 06, 2018, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 06, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
No matter about social contributions from the GAA or whatever, the 6 counties will never be properly normalised until education is integrated.

Yep, 100% right and there is no appetite for it on either side

Integrated education is the only way forward, I was the first person in Omagh to begin primary school education and go the whole way through to 7th year in Drumragh college when it opened in 1995. It was an excellent experience.

Mnder, don't fully agree with your sentiment. I don't know the story in other parts of the north but Drumragh is the only school in Omagh that has to turn down applications. In fact, they secured funding to increase capacity just last year. 

http://ulsterherald.com/2017/09/22/drumragh-college-gets-approval-increase-enrolment/

I think you will find that the three grammar schools have always been over subscribed.  DIC has had a major impact on the non-selective schools.  Omagh High has fought back and stabilised through working with the academy.

DIC is not an Integrated school by the required definition that it must have a minimum of 30% of the minority community and it has never breached 26% Protestant even when parents were encouraged to declare no religion rather than Catholic to help out.  It has been responsible for assisting in the close of secondary schools in Castlederg and Plumbridge while decimating the intake to SHC.  DIC has become socially more acceptable than a Catholic non-selective school and it will be interesting to see what happens when the two Catholic grammar schools shoot themselves in the foot by removing selection and still try to be grammar schools.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 06, 2018, 06:02:54 PM
Integration is not the first priority for our school system.  It needs a top to bottom reform to meet the needs of the economy and the young people but it is shaped and controlled for the benefit of the institutions/schools and their preservation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 06:51:40 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?
Sport has nothing to do with politics in normal societies.
NI is not a normal society.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

I can't speak for johnnycool, but I don't believe so, as they are minority sports on this island. They are even minority sports within the Six Counties. I think cricket is a good game, like to see Ireland do well, watch it if it's on TV and have even tried it in the past, but it's not even in the top 5 sports in the north. If it were the most popular sport in the north, or even within the unionist community, with widespread media coverage of the local game, then yes I would consider a nationalist as insular for not having any real knowledge of cricket.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

I can't speak for johnnycool, but I don't believe so, as they are minority sports on this island. They are even minority sports within the Six Counties. I think cricket is a good game, like to see Ireland do well, watch it if it's on TV and have even tried it in the past, but it's not even in the top 5 sports in the north. If it were the most popular sport in the north, or even within the unionist community, with widespread media coverage of the local game, then yes I would consider a nationalist as insular for not having any real knowledge of cricket.
As things stand, it's hardly inclusive from an "East Coast dwelling Protestant's" perspective.  Quite the opposite in fact.  As such, you cannot really accuse Protestants of insularity if they don't buy into it.
As for your second point, where Gaelic Games are minority sports in predominantly Protestant areas, by the same argument you could also say that Protestants are not being insular by having limited interest in GAA.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 07:26:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 06:51:40 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?
Sport has nothing to do with politics in normal societies.
NI is not a normal society.
Surely it continues to play a part in the GAA in the ROI too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 07:30:20 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 07:26:57 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 06:51:40 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?
Sport has nothing to do with politics in normal societies.
NI is not a normal society.
Surely it continues to play a part in the GAA in the ROI too.
But other sports feature in schools and hockey doesn't mean anything special. NI is different because education and sport became badges of identity when what was on offer was either unwelcoming or unwanted. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 06, 2018, 07:39:48 PM
Hockey was a pretty Protestant Sport in the 26 up to recently.
In Cork haven't they still  a Cork C of I hockey club and a Catholic Institute one??
No politics in Gaelic games in the 26 (apart from internal cut throat GAA politics of course ;D) other than parties trying to get the odd well known player to stand for them.
The GAA and Gaelic games helped to alleviate some of the bitterness after the Civil war especially in Kerry.

Anyway back on topic - what arrangements do the 6 Cos bucks here think should be included in the new All Ireland for the  Unionist/British minority (as they will be) ??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 06, 2018, 07:40:30 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

So you would concur with those loyalists kids who didn't want to play Gaelic games? I mean if it's about Gaelic culture and an Irish Identity that is no doubt difficult for some coming from a loyalist, British culture and Identity?

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

I can't speak for johnnycool, but I don't believe so, as they are minority sports on this island. They are even minority sports within the Six Counties. I think cricket is a good game, like to see Ireland do well, watch it if it's on TV and have even tried it in the past, but it's not even in the top 5 sports in the north. If it were the most popular sport in the north, or even within the unionist community, with widespread media coverage of the local game, then yes I would consider a nationalist as insular for not having any real knowledge of cricket.
As things stand, it's hardly inclusive from an "East Coast dwelling Protestant's" perspective.  Quite the opposite in fact.  As such, you cannot really accuse Protestants of insularity if they don't buy into it.
As for your second point, where Gaelic Games are minority sports in predominantly Protestant areas, by the same argument you could also say that Protestants are not being insular by having limited interest in GAA.

I believe they're insular for not having a general knowledge of the game. Intercounty GAA has regular live TV coverage, results on BBC 6C, even articles in the Belfast Telegraph. When was the last time you saw the Waringstown cricket results called out, let alone a live match or highlights shown on TV?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 06, 2018, 07:40:30 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

So you would concur with those loyalists kids who didn't want to play Gaelic games? I mean if it's about Gaelic culture and an Irish Identity that is no doubt difficult for some coming from a loyalist, British culture and Identity?

/Jim.

As unfortunate as it is, I can understand their dislike of the GAA when you have teams named after what they regard as terrorists. In the same way I would dislike a soccer team from the Sandy Row called Michael Stone Utd. However, the idea is that the GAA should promote an inclusive Irish identity that respects unionist ideas and traditions, while educating them on the country in which they are born, the language that gives them many place names, etc. But I believe the GAA was created to be a fundamentally Irish organisation, defending the idea of an Irish nation, and that it should remain so.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 08:37:32 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

I can't speak for johnnycool, but I don't believe so, as they are minority sports on this island. They are even minority sports within the Six Counties. I think cricket is a good game, like to see Ireland do well, watch it if it's on TV and have even tried it in the past, but it's not even in the top 5 sports in the north. If it were the most popular sport in the north, or even within the unionist community, with widespread media coverage of the local game, then yes I would consider a nationalist as insular for not having any real knowledge of cricket.
As things stand, it's hardly inclusive from an "East Coast dwelling Protestant's" perspective.  Quite the opposite in fact.  As such, you cannot really accuse Protestants of insularity if they don't buy into it.
As for your second point, where Gaelic Games are minority sports in predominantly Protestant areas, by the same argument you could also say that Protestants are not being insular by having limited interest in GAA.

I believe they're insular for not having a general knowledge of the game. Intercounty GAA has regular live TV coverage, results on BBC 6C, even articles in the Belfast Telegraph. When was the last time you saw the Waringstown cricket results called out, let alone a live match or highlights shown on TV?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 06, 2018, 07:40:30 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

So you would concur with those loyalists kids who didn't want to play Gaelic games? I mean if it's about Gaelic culture and an Irish Identity that is no doubt difficult for some coming from a loyalist, British culture and Identity?

/Jim.

As unfortunate as it is, I can understand their dislike of the GAA when you have teams named after what they regard as terrorists. In the same way I would dislike a soccer team from the Sandy Row called Michael Stone Utd. However, the idea is that the GAA should promote an inclusive Irish identity that respects unionist ideas and traditions, while educating them on the country in which they are born, the language that gives them many place names, etc. But I believe the GAA was created to be a fundamentally Irish organisation, defending the idea of an Irish nation, and that it should remain so.
It was formed in 1884. Move on FFS.  In any case, as long as clubs continue to be named after terrorosts and what have you, it is in no way "respecting unionist ideas and traditions".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 08:39:04 PM
I think the latest carry on from the DUP has shown that protecting Irish culture is as relevant now as it was when the Gaelic League were around. I've already covered naming clubs after what the unionist community regard as terrorists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 09:06:21 PM
Strangely all this talk of hockey cricket etc, at the formation of the gaa, I believe it was Cusack who wanted cricket to be part of the newly formed organisation.

Very strange considering the aim was to promote Irish sports.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:16:09 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 09:06:21 PM
Strangely all this talk of hockey cricket etc, at the formation of the gaa, I believe it was Cusack who wanted cricket to be part of the newly formed organisation.

Very strange considering the aim was to promote Irish sports.

The whole thing was based on cricket. Play for the parish team against other parishes within the English county system and the best represent their counties in inter county competition. And we have been wedded to the English county system ever since?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 09:29:05 PM
Sport has always been political for Unionism given how it defines itself as not Irish

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Football_Association

Shortly after the partition of Ireland, in 1921, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) was established as a rival association to regulate the game in what was to become the Irish Free State. The immediate cause of the split lay in a bitter dispute over the venue for the replay of an Irish Cup match in 1921 involving Glentoran of Belfast and Shelbourne of Dublin. When the first cup match was drawn in Belfast, because of the Irish war of independence, the IFA reneged on a promise to play the replay in Dublin and scheduled the rematch again for Belfast. Shelbourne refused to comply and forfeited the Cup.[2] Such was the anger over the issue that the Leinster Football Association broke away from the IFA and formed its own national association. Those behind the FAI believed that football should be regulated by a federation based in the Irish Free State's capital, Dublin; they also accused the IFA of neglecting the development of the game in the South. The IFA's supporters argued that the federation should be based where the game was mainly played – namely Ulster, and its principal city Belfast.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 06, 2018, 09:32:01 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 08:37:32 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

I can't speak for johnnycool, but I don't believe so, as they are minority sports on this island. They are even minority sports within the Six Counties. I think cricket is a good game, like to see Ireland do well, watch it if it's on TV and have even tried it in the past, but it's not even in the top 5 sports in the north. If it were the most popular sport in the north, or even within the unionist community, with widespread media coverage of the local game, then yes I would consider a nationalist as insular for not having any real knowledge of cricket.
As things stand, it's hardly inclusive from an "East Coast dwelling Protestant's" perspective.  Quite the opposite in fact.  As such, you cannot really accuse Protestants of insularity if they don't buy into it.
As for your second point, where Gaelic Games are minority sports in predominantly Protestant areas, by the same argument you could also say that Protestants are not being insular by having limited interest in GAA.

I believe they're insular for not having a general knowledge of the game. Intercounty GAA has regular live TV coverage, results on BBC 6C, even articles in the Belfast Telegraph. When was the last time you saw the Waringstown cricket results called out, let alone a live match or highlights shown on TV?

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 06, 2018, 07:40:30 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

So you would concur with those loyalists kids who didn't want to play Gaelic games? I mean if it's about Gaelic culture and an Irish Identity that is no doubt difficult for some coming from a loyalist, British culture and Identity?

/Jim.

As unfortunate as it is, I can understand their dislike of the GAA when you have teams named after what they regard as terrorists. In the same way I would dislike a soccer team from the Sandy Row called Michael Stone Utd. However, the idea is that the GAA should promote an inclusive Irish identity that respects unionist ideas and traditions, while educating them on the country in which they are born, the language that gives them many place names, etc. But I believe the GAA was created to be a fundamentally Irish organisation, defending the idea of an Irish nation, and that it should remain so.
It was formed in 1884. Move on FFS.  In any case, as long as clubs continue to be named after terrorosts and what have you, it is in no way "respecting unionist ideas and traditions".

In that case are Laws that are written in 1884 to be disregarded? Should we move on? Let's be very clear on this as well. There are NO GAA clubs named after terrorists. It's this type of statement that keeps me happy with the status quo.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:47:25 PM
Donald,

If I thought it ok to give a local fella a bit of a beating around the knees and ankles and leave him in a back alley screaming in pain would I be a suitable candidate to have the local club named after me?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 09:29:05 PM
Sport has always been political for Unionism given how it defines itself as not Irish

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Football_Association

Shortly after the partition of Ireland, in 1921, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) was established as a rival association to regulate the game in what was to become the Irish Free State. The immediate cause of the split lay in a bitter dispute over the venue for the replay of an Irish Cup match in 1921 involving Glentoran of Belfast and Shelbourne of Dublin. When the first cup match was drawn in Belfast, because of the Irish war of independence, the IFA reneged on a promise to play the replay in Dublin and scheduled the rematch again for Belfast. Shelbourne refused to comply and forfeited the Cup.[2] Such was the anger over the issue that the Leinster Football Association broke away from the IFA and formed its own national association. Those behind the FAI believed that football should be regulated by a federation based in the Irish Free State's capital, Dublin; they also accused the IFA of neglecting the development of the game in the South. The IFA's supporters argued that the federation should be based where the game was mainly played – namely Ulster, and its principal city Belfast.
Except for the fact that sports played predominantly by Protestants in NI (e.g. Rugby, cricket and hockey) are organised on an all Ireland basis.  So maybe not as political as you say.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 09:29:05 PM
Sport has always been political for Unionism given how it defines itself as not Irish

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Football_Association

Shortly after the partition of Ireland, in 1921, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) was established as a rival association to regulate the game in what was to become the Irish Free State. The immediate cause of the split lay in a bitter dispute over the venue for the replay of an Irish Cup match in 1921 involving Glentoran of Belfast and Shelbourne of Dublin. When the first cup match was drawn in Belfast, because of the Irish war of independence, the IFA reneged on a promise to play the replay in Dublin and scheduled the rematch again for Belfast. Shelbourne refused to comply and forfeited the Cup.[2] Such was the anger over the issue that the Leinster Football Association broke away from the IFA and formed its own national association. Those behind the FAI believed that football should be regulated by a federation based in the Irish Free State's capital, Dublin; they also accused the IFA of neglecting the development of the game in the South. The IFA's supporters argued that the federation should be based where the game was mainly played – namely Ulster, and its principal city Belfast.
Except for the fact that sports played predominantly by Protestants in NI (e.g. Rugby, cricket and hockey) are organised on an all Ireland basis.  So maybe not as political as you say.

Out of interest, what's the situation with flags/anthems with the Ireland cricket and hockey teams?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 06, 2018, 10:14:42 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 09:29:05 PM
Sport has always been political for Unionism given how it defines itself as not Irish

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Football_Association

Shortly after the partition of Ireland, in 1921, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) was established as a rival association to regulate the game in what was to become the Irish Free State. The immediate cause of the split lay in a bitter dispute over the venue for the replay of an Irish Cup match in 1921 involving Glentoran of Belfast and Shelbourne of Dublin. When the first cup match was drawn in Belfast, because of the Irish war of independence, the IFA reneged on a promise to play the replay in Dublin and scheduled the rematch again for Belfast. Shelbourne refused to comply and forfeited the Cup.[2] Such was the anger over the issue that the Leinster Football Association broke away from the IFA and formed its own national association. Those behind the FAI believed that football should be regulated by a federation based in the Irish Free State's capital, Dublin; they also accused the IFA of neglecting the development of the game in the South. The IFA's supporters argued that the federation should be based where the game was mainly played – namely Ulster, and its principal city Belfast.
Except for the fact that sports played predominantly by Protestants in NI (e.g. Rugby, cricket and hockey) are organised on an all Ireland basis.  So maybe not as political as you say.

Out of interest, what's the situation with flags/anthems in The Ireland cricket and hockey teams?

They use makey up flags rather than that representing the Irish people.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 10:25:31 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 06, 2018, 10:14:42 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 09:29:05 PM
Sport has always been political for Unionism given how it defines itself as not Irish

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Football_Association

Shortly after the partition of Ireland, in 1921, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) was established as a rival association to regulate the game in what was to become the Irish Free State. The immediate cause of the split lay in a bitter dispute over the venue for the replay of an Irish Cup match in 1921 involving Glentoran of Belfast and Shelbourne of Dublin. When the first cup match was drawn in Belfast, because of the Irish war of independence, the IFA reneged on a promise to play the replay in Dublin and scheduled the rematch again for Belfast. Shelbourne refused to comply and forfeited the Cup.[2] Such was the anger over the issue that the Leinster Football Association broke away from the IFA and formed its own national association. Those behind the FAI believed that football should be regulated by a federation based in the Irish Free State's capital, Dublin; they also accused the IFA of neglecting the development of the game in the South. The IFA's supporters argued that the federation should be based where the game was mainly played – namely Ulster, and its principal city Belfast.
Except for the fact that sports played predominantly by Protestants in NI (e.g. Rugby, cricket and hockey) are organised on an all Ireland basis.  So maybe not as political as you say.

Out of interest, what's the situation with flags/anthems in The Ireland cricket and hockey teams?

They use makey up flags rather than that representing the Irish people.
Which represent all players and supporters involved.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 06, 2018, 10:27:58 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 06, 2018, 10:35:55 AM
There should be some sort of outreach program by the GAA to bring them into the fold as part of a civic movement towards a United Ireland.

Reading the remainder of this thread, if contributors here are representative of Ulster GAA then I am not sure they are best placed to reach out to unonists.

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on March 06, 2018, 10:42:53 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 06, 2018, 10:27:58 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 06, 2018, 10:35:55 AM
There should be some sort of outreach program by the GAA to bring them into the fold as part of a civic movement towards a United Ireland.

Reading the remainder of this thread, if contributors here are representative of Ulster GAA then I am not sure they are best placed to reach out to unonists.

/Jim.

Ask yourself why that would possibly be
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: macdanger2 on March 06, 2018, 11:13:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 06, 2018, 09:06:21 PM
Strangely all this talk of hockey cricket etc, at the formation of the gaa, I believe it was Cusack who wanted cricket to be part of the newly formed organisation.

Very strange considering the aim was to promote Irish sports.

Missed out by only a couple of votes
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 06, 2018, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 01:16:06 PM
http://ulster.gaa.ie/2017/03/banbridge-cuchulainns-capture-ulster-gaa-cuchulainn-cup-2017/


The GAA in Ulster are already trying to reach out in cross-community events and competitions. The biggest problem is probably the naming of GAA grounds and clubs, which is (understandably, to be fair) used as a stick to beat the GAA with and off putting for large numbers of the unionist community.
But it is ok to ask people to live in Craigavon, drive over The Queens Bridge etc...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 11:26:47 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 06, 2018, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 01:16:06 PM
http://ulster.gaa.ie/2017/03/banbridge-cuchulainns-capture-ulster-gaa-cuchulainn-cup-2017/


The GAA in Ulster are already trying to reach out in cross-community events and competitions. The biggest problem is probably the naming of GAA grounds and clubs, which is (understandably, to be fair) used as a stick to beat the GAA with and off putting for large numbers of the unionist community.
But it is ok to ask people to live in Craigavon, drive over The Queens Bridge etc...

Shankill and  Donaghadee Irish names!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 11:38:36 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 06, 2018, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 01:16:06 PM
http://ulster.gaa.ie/2017/03/banbridge-cuchulainns-capture-ulster-gaa-cuchulainn-cup-2017/


The GAA in Ulster are already trying to reach out in cross-community events and competitions. The biggest problem is probably the naming of GAA grounds and clubs, which is (understandably, to be fair) used as a stick to beat the GAA with and off putting for large numbers of the unionist community.
But it is ok to ask people to live in Craigavon, drive over The Queens Bridge etc...

No, but two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not saying the names should be changed, just that I can understand their reluctance/dislike.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 06:21:54 AM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 06, 2018, 09:29:05 PM
Sport has always been political for Unionism given how it defines itself as not Irish

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Football_Association

Shortly after the partition of Ireland, in 1921, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) was established as a rival association to regulate the game in what was to become the Irish Free State. The immediate cause of the split lay in a bitter dispute over the venue for the replay of an Irish Cup match in 1921 involving Glentoran of Belfast and Shelbourne of Dublin. When the first cup match was drawn in Belfast, because of the Irish war of independence, the IFA reneged on a promise to play the replay in Dublin and scheduled the rematch again for Belfast. Shelbourne refused to comply and forfeited the Cup.[2] Such was the anger over the issue that the Leinster Football Association broke away from the IFA and formed its own national association. Those behind the FAI believed that football should be regulated by a federation based in the Irish Free State's capital, Dublin; they also accused the IFA of neglecting the development of the game in the South. The IFA's supporters argued that the federation should be based where the game was mainly played – namely Ulster, and its principal city Belfast.
Except for the fact that sports played predominantly by Protestants in NI (e.g. Rugby, cricket and hockey) are organised on an all Ireland basis.  So maybe not as political as you say.
I think scale also comes into it. NI can barely support a soccer league andinternational team but it doesn't have enough people to support the same for hockey , cricket or rugby so pragmatism won.
The relationship between unionism and nationalism over the last century has been marked by bad faith. In the same time period the NI economy collapsed. I wonder where unionism goes from here 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 09:13:04 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 06, 2018, 10:27:58 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 06, 2018, 10:35:55 AM
There should be some sort of outreach program by the GAA to bring them into the fold as part of a civic movement towards a United Ireland.

Reading the remainder of this thread, if contributors here are representative of Ulster GAA then I am not sure they are best placed to reach out to unonists.

/Jim.

/Jim, have you been following the news in the North over the past couple of weeks??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on March 07, 2018, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it

Good job your not in charge then.....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 07, 2018, 09:40:47 AM
An interesting view on the new 17 NI constituencies.

bangordub.wordpress.com/2018/02/01/faha-why-the-boundary-review-needs-to-be-challenged/

I thought it was a link.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 07, 2018, 10:12:37 AM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

I can't speak for johnnycool, but I don't believe so, as they are minority sports on this island. They are even minority sports within the Six Counties. I think cricket is a good game, like to see Ireland do well, watch it if it's on TV and have even tried it in the past, but it's not even in the top 5 sports in the north. If it were the most popular sport in the north, or even within the unionist community, with widespread media coverage of the local game, then yes I would consider a nationalist as insular for not having any real knowledge of cricket.
As things stand, it's hardly inclusive from an "East Coast dwelling Protestant's" perspective.  Quite the opposite in fact.  As such, you cannot really accuse Protestants of insularity if they don't buy into it.
As for your second point, where Gaelic Games are minority sports in predominantly Protestant areas, by the same argument you could also say that Protestants are not being insular by having limited interest in GAA.

I'd have enough general interest in sport to know if 30 odd thousand people turned up to watch Lisnagarvey play Belfast Harlequins in an Irish cup game. I don't buy into hockey or even cricket, but am well aware of its existence and how popular it is.

Is there nationalists into sport unaware of Linfield, the Glens or Coleraine, there may be but I'd very much doubt that.

Being insular and insulated from various sports and culture isn't a one way street but lets be honest if I was to watch sport from BBC NI I'd be led to believe that Ulster rugby, soccer and motorbikes are a stable diet with gaelic football confined to the summer months.
I'd bet most sporting prods have never heard of Slaughneil yet four or five thousand would have been at their recent championship games.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 10:42:23 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 09:13:04 AM
/Jim, have you been following the news in the North over the past couple of weeks??

Yes.

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it

Good job your not in charge then.....

Only too well aware that I'm not in charge.

Just highlighting the insanity of the system we have

Public funds should not be used to sustain that madness
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on March 07, 2018, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it

Good job your not in charge then.....

Only too well aware that I'm not in charge.

Just highlighting the insanity of the system we have

Public funds should not be used to sustain that madness

What about the kids who's parents do attend Mass and take their kids to mass. These parents also want their kids to attend a Catholic school. So you think these parents should have to fund the school?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it

Good job your not in charge then.....

Only too well aware that I'm not in charge.

Just highlighting the insanity of the system we have

Public funds should not be used to sustain that madness

What about the kids who's parents do attend Mass and take their kids to mass. These parents also want their kids to attend a Catholic school. So you think these parents should have to fund the school?

Yes.

That's the way it is in most of the western world
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 01:46:06 PM
So, all the infrastructure (im presuming) owned by the Church, all the investment, how does that get written off? How do you go about transforming 100+ Year old catholic secondary schools into intergrated ones? Do we just automatically cut off funding them?

I agree in principle with intergrated education, I just haven't seen enough in practice to support it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 02:11:59 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 01:46:06 PM
So, all the infrastructure (im presuming) owned by the Church, all the investment, how does that get written off? How do you go about transforming 100+ Year old catholic secondary schools into intergrated ones? Do we just automatically cut off funding them?

I agree in principle with intergrated education, I just haven't seen enough in practice to support it.

How much are the church investing in school infrastructure?
How much is the public purse investing in school infrastructure?
Who has invested in the infrastructure to date?

Do the church really own the land, the buildings and the kit?

When a school like the Abbey in Newry move campus is it church that buy the land and fund the building and the kit/PME?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 02:11:59 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 01:46:06 PM
So, all the infrastructure (im presuming) owned by the Church, all the investment, how does that get written off? How do you go about transforming 100+ Year old catholic secondary schools into intergrated ones? Do we just automatically cut off funding them?

I agree in principle with intergrated education, I just haven't seen enough in practice to support it.

How much are the church investing in school infrastructure?
How much is the public purse investing in school infrastructure?
Who has invested in the infrastructure to date?

Do the church really own the land, the buildings and the kit?

When a school like the Abbey in Newry move campus is it church that buy the land and fund the building and the kit/PME?
Try a school like St Colman's... just asking the question, what happens a school like that? I don't know the ins and outs of who owns what, I'd be fairly certain the church hasn't invested much into education so I don't know why you're answering my question with more questions. But with the college I'd say the Catholic Church probably owns a good bit
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on March 07, 2018, 02:23:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it

Good job your not in charge then.....

Only too well aware that I'm not in charge.

Just highlighting the insanity of the system we have

Public funds should not be used to sustain that madness

What about the kids who's parents do attend Mass and take their kids to mass. These parents also want their kids to attend a Catholic school. So you think these parents should have to fund the school?

Yes.

That's the way it is in most of the western world

It will never happen in Ireland in our life time. Gladly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 02:11:59 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 01:46:06 PM
So, all the infrastructure (im presuming) owned by the Church, all the investment, how does that get written off? How do you go about transforming 100+ Year old catholic secondary schools into intergrated ones? Do we just automatically cut off funding them?

I agree in principle with intergrated education, I just haven't seen enough in practice to support it.

How much are the church investing in school infrastructure?
How much is the public purse investing in school infrastructure?
Who has invested in the infrastructure to date?

Do the church really own the land, the buildings and the kit?

When a school like the Abbey in Newry move campus is it church that buy the land and fund the building and the kit/PME?
Try a school like St Colman's... just asking the question, what happens a school like that? I don't know the ins and outs of who owns what, I'd be fairly certain the church hasn't invested much into education so I don't know why you're answering my question with more questions. But with the college I'd say the Catholic Church probably owns a good bit

Just trying to widen out the debate.

There are Trusts to hold the assets of the original church orders when an order had previously ran a school. But these would be of limited value if drained of the running costs which are the from the public purse with the exception of pupil fees already paid
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 02:28:38 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 02:23:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it

Good job your not in charge then.....

Only too well aware that I'm not in charge.

Just highlighting the insanity of the system we have

Public funds should not be used to sustain that madness

What about the kids who's parents do attend Mass and take their kids to mass. These parents also want their kids to attend a Catholic school. So you think these parents should have to fund the school?

Yes.

That's the way it is in most of the western world

It will never happen in Ireland in our life time. Gladly.

What is it about segregated education that you hold so dearly?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on March 07, 2018, 02:35:44 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 02:28:38 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 02:23:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it

Good job your not in charge then.....

Only too well aware that I'm not in charge.

Just highlighting the insanity of the system we have

Public funds should not be used to sustain that madness

What about the kids who's parents do attend Mass and take their kids to mass. These parents also want their kids to attend a Catholic school. So you think these parents should have to fund the school?

Yes.

That's the way it is in most of the western world

It will never happen in Ireland in our life time. Gladly.

What is it about segregated education that you hold so dearly?

I have no problem with integrated. The option is there for people who want it and I respect their decision but so is the option for Catholic families to send their children to Catholic schools. That is how I was educated and my Children are in the same system.

People have the choice and that should remain the case.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 02:56:31 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 02:35:44 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 02:28:38 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 02:23:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 06, 2018, 09:22:47 PM
Integrated system only way to go.

Think of 2 kids running around side by side. Neither family are church attendees and haven't been for 2 generations. At the age of 4 they get different uniforms and educated in different properties based upon the religious views of their grandparents. Total madness.

I would make integrated education the only publicly funded education system. If you want a segregated education start shaking a bucket and raise the funds. That's the way I would have it

Good job your not in charge then.....

Only too well aware that I'm not in charge.

Just highlighting the insanity of the system we have

Public funds should not be used to sustain that madness

What about the kids who's parents do attend Mass and take their kids to mass. These parents also want their kids to attend a Catholic school. So you think these parents should have to fund the school?

Yes.

That's the way it is in most of the western world

It will never happen in Ireland in our life time. Gladly.

What is it about segregated education that you hold so dearly?

I have no problem with integrated. The option is there for people who want it and I respect their decision but so is the option for Catholic families to send their children to Catholic schools. That is how I was educated and my Children are in the same system.

People have the choice and that should remain the case.

So is there any benefit of segregated education that you want to point to?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:48:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

How many clubs are named after "terrorists" apart from Fintona Pearses of course?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 03:55:05 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:48:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

How many clubs are named after "terrorists" apart from Fintona Pearses of course?
Tone? McCracken? Grattan? Pearse? Plunkett? Mac Diarmada?

What clubs are named after terrorists?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
A bit ironic that Syferus' local club is named after a chap whom unionists of the day would have called a "terrorist".
He was shot by the "Security forces" of the day while leading armed men in an attack on a Police Barracks.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:12:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
A bit ironic that Syferus' local club is named after a chap whom unionists of the day would have called a "terrorist".
He was shot by the "Security forces" of the day while leading armed men in an attack on a Police Barracks.

What's so wrong about LOCATION_HERE Gaels?

Even names that aren't passed any heed of down south are very controversial in the parallel universe that is the north. Republicans are not unaware of this fact when they name their clubs after nationalist heroes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 04:25:15 PM
While Davitts GAC are fully entitled to hire out their club to anyone they want, they could have choose not to hire their clubhouse to Sinn Féin to show for a film and talk about the Gibraltar 3 last Sunday.

I suspect that wandering into a Falls Road club for a kick about would be difficult enough for even the (lesser spotted) open-minded unionist.  Seeing that event going on down the corridor while you togged out in the dressing room might impede any outreach program.

As I say they are in within their rights (although the fact the posters had Sinn Féin logo could sail close to the wind in terms of rule 1.11) but looking from a far I am not sure it would align with the work of the Ulster GAA outreach program that Michael Hasson has been supporting. 

If they were to host some of the "busting the myths" talks, our a game of 3 halves, that day or even in the run up I think it could have an adverse effect on the participants?

Maybe that a soft Free Stater but that's how it looks from afar.  Equally it could be is that part of the outreach goals is for unionists to become comfortable with Provo events.

/Jim.

Edit:  link to Sinn Féin twitter: https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465 (https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on March 07, 2018, 04:32:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

Is this a windup??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orchard park on March 07, 2018, 04:35:23 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
A bit ironic that Syferus' local club is named after a chap whom unionists of the day would have called a "terrorist".
He was shot by the "Security forces" of the day while leading armed men in an attack on a Police Barracks.

was St Brigid a terrorist as well ???
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

Where are you picking up the information that you are not allowed to play Gaelic games in integrated schools?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:48:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

How many clubs are named after "terrorists" apart from Fintona Pearses of course?

Very few are named after terrorists. But some are

More of an issue would be Mickey Mouse junior and underage competitions or club facilities named after terrorists. It doesn't help

A lot of clubs are named after individuals or organisations that defined themselves as standing up to British rule. An organisation that focuses so much on that one issue isn't really doing it utmost to reach out unionists
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 04:25:15 PM
While Davitts GAC are fully entitled to hire out their club to anyone they want, they could have choose not to hire their clubhouse to Sinn Féin to show for a film and talk about the Gibraltar 3 last Sunday.

I suspect that wandering into a Falls Road club for a kick about would be difficult enough for even the (lesser spotted) open-minded unionist.  Seeing that event going on down the corridor while you togged out in the dressing room might impede any outreach program.

As I say they are in within their rights (although the fact the posters had Sinn Féin logo could sail close to the wind in terms of rule 1.11) but looking from a far I am not sure it would align with the work of the Ulster GAA outreach program that Michael Hasson has been supporting. 

If they were to host some of the "busting the myths" talks, our a game of 3 halves, that day or even in the run up I think it could have an adverse effect on the participants?

Maybe that a soft Free Stater but that's how it looks from afar.  Equally it could be is that part of the outreach goals is for unionists to become comfortable with Provo events.

/Jim.

Edit:  link to Sinn Féin twitter: https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465 (https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465)

All of us GAA fans often wax lyrical about clubs being central to their community.  Davitt's GAC are no different from any other club in the country in that regard, they reflect the community from which they draw their support.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 05:06:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 04:25:15 PM
While Davitts GAC are fully entitled to hire out their club to anyone they want, they could have choose not to hire their clubhouse to Sinn Féin to show for a film and talk about the Gibraltar 3 last Sunday.

I suspect that wandering into a Falls Road club for a kick about would be difficult enough for even the (lesser spotted) open-minded unionist.  Seeing that event going on down the corridor while you togged out in the dressing room might impede any outreach program.

As I say they are in within their rights (although the fact the posters had Sinn Féin logo could sail close to the wind in terms of rule 1.11) but looking from a far I am not sure it would align with the work of the Ulster GAA outreach program that Michael Hasson has been supporting. 

If they were to host some of the "busting the myths" talks, our a game of 3 halves, that day or even in the run up I think it could have an adverse effect on the participants?

Maybe that a soft Free Stater but that's how it looks from afar.  Equally it could be is that part of the outreach goals is for unionists to become comfortable with Provo events.

/Jim.

Edit:  link to Sinn Féin twitter: https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465 (https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465)

All of us GAA fans often wax lyrical about clubs being central to their community.  Davitt's GAC are no different from any other club in the country in that regard, they reflect the community from which they draw their support.

And as I said they are entitled to that.  They could however consider how to try to expand that community. 

If individual clubs don't want to do that, fair enough.  Then however, it leaves Ulster GAA open to the accusation that their Outreach program is purely for show and sound bite purposes.

/Jim.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 04:25:15 PM
While Davitts GAC are fully entitled to hire out their club to anyone they want, they could have choose not to hire their clubhouse to Sinn Féin to show for a film and talk about the Gibraltar 3 last Sunday.

I suspect that wandering into a Falls Road club for a kick about would be difficult enough for even the (lesser spotted) open-minded unionist.  Seeing that event going on down the corridor while you togged out in the dressing room might impede any outreach program.

As I say they are in within their rights (although the fact the posters had Sinn Féin logo could sail close to the wind in terms of rule 1.11) but looking from a far I am not sure it would align with the work of the Ulster GAA outreach program that Michael Hasson has been supporting. 

If they were to host some of the "busting the myths" talks, our a game of 3 halves, that day or even in the run up I think it could have an adverse effect on the participants?

Maybe that a soft Free Stater but that's how it looks from afar.  Equally it could be is that part of the outreach goals is for unionists to become comfortable with Provo events.

/Jim.

Edit:  link to Sinn Féin twitter: https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465 (https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465)

All of us GAA fans often wax lyrical about clubs being central to their community.  Davitt's GAC are no different from any other club in the country in that regard, they reflect the community from which they draw their support.

It a view they are entitled to

It's a narrow view. It's not particularly helpful

There can't be anything wrong with pointing that out
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ONARAGGATIP on March 07, 2018, 05:19:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

why have you such bitterness towards your fellow Gaels in the north, was losing to Down that bad for you? It was only a league game, get over it fella.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 05:22:08 PM
Quote from: ONARAGGATIP on March 07, 2018, 05:19:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

why have you such bitterness towards your fellow Gaels in the north, was losing to Down that bad for you? It was only a league game, get over it fella.

?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 04:25:15 PM
While Davitts GAC are fully entitled to hire out their club to anyone they want, they could have choose not to hire their clubhouse to Sinn Féin to show for a film and talk about the Gibraltar 3 last Sunday.

I suspect that wandering into a Falls Road club for a kick about would be difficult enough for even the (lesser spotted) open-minded unionist.  Seeing that event going on down the corridor while you togged out in the dressing room might impede any outreach program.

As I say they are in within their rights (although the fact the posters had Sinn Féin logo could sail close to the wind in terms of rule 1.11) but looking from a far I am not sure it would align with the work of the Ulster GAA outreach program that Michael Hasson has been supporting. 

If they were to host some of the "busting the myths" talks, our a game of 3 halves, that day or even in the run up I think it could have an adverse effect on the participants?

Maybe that a soft Free Stater but that's how it looks from afar.  Equally it could be is that part of the outreach goals is for unionists to become comfortable with Provo events.

/Jim.

Edit:  link to Sinn Féin twitter: https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465 (https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465)

All of us GAA fans often wax lyrical about clubs being central to their community.  Davitt's GAC are no different from any other club in the country in that regard, they reflect the community from which they draw their support.

It a view they are entitled to

It's a narrow view. It's not particularly helpful

There can't be anything wrong with pointing that out

Not helpful to what or whom?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ONARAGGATIP on March 07, 2018, 05:39:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 05:22:08 PM
Quote from: ONARAGGATIP on March 07, 2018, 05:19:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

why have you such bitterness towards your fellow Gaels in the north, was losing to Down that bad for you? It was only a league game, get over it fella.

?

you say in your post we play the republics national anthem as if it is not ours also, you say we do it as fcuk you to the other side which is nonsense, you accuse us of never compromising.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 07, 2018, 05:39:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

What a warped post.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 07, 2018, 05:39:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

What a warped post.

Disagreeing that both things are not intrinsic to the GAA and should be reigned as a first step towards a point in the future when all sides in the north can feel comfortable playing the most popular sport on this island is what's warped. I love gaelic football; I couldn't care less about the jingoistic element of the sport in the north.

If you disagree with the goal of inclusion we have a serious problem here. Inclusion means compromise.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on March 07, 2018, 06:31:50 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 07, 2018, 05:39:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.

What a warped post.

Disagreeing that both things are not intrinsic to the GAA and should be reigned as a first step towards a point in the future when all sides in the north can feel comfortable playing the most popular sport on this island is what's warped. I love gaelic football; I couldn't care less about the jingoistic element of the sport in the north.

If you disagree with the goal of inclusion we have a serious problem here. Inclusion means compromise.

Holy f**k.  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on March 07, 2018, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 07, 2018, 10:12:37 AM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 06, 2018, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
As an East Coast dweller where the protestants are still very much in the majority they're very insular and unaware that in large swathes of the six counties there is huge nationalist majorities and a thriving nationalist culture that they're totally unaware and oblivious of.

For instance I was talking to a lad from Ballywalter heavily involved in youth soccer and he couldn't understand why young fellas on his team would play hurling instead of soccer as he'd to cancel one of their games as we were taking an U12 team to an indoor blitz in Magherafelt.
I had to explain to him that these lads would by and large see their senior club hurlers play and there'd be a couple of hundred at it, a family day out almost and more at club championship games and other than what they see on TV for the premiership they don't see any other soccer games, not live anyway and even those that possibly did, there would be one man and his dog watching.
I was even telling him that we'd taken them down to Croke park to see an AI hurling semi-final and there was almost 60K at it. He hadn't a clue and I'd bet is totally representative of people from those types of areas.

Time they were educated.
A bit of a broadbrush don't you think?  Most Protestants on the East Coast have a good idea about the popularity of Gaelic Games, both in NI, as well as in Ireland on the whole.
It's interesting how you equate Gaelic Games with a thriving nationalist culture.  Perhaps that's the problem.  Sport should have f-all to do with nationalism / politics.  Until times change and politics is kept out of sport, you can do all the outreach you like, but it will probably not have much impact on East Coast dwelling Protestants taking much of an interest in Gaelic Games.
Finally, you are not necessarily insular if you choose not to take an interest in something.  As someone who is interested in many sports but was not brought up to play Gaelic Sports, I have tried on many occasions to watch Gaelic Games on TV and even attended an Ulster Gaelic Football Final, but I'm afraid it just doesn't do it for me.  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

The GAA was founded for reasons not exclusively sporting, and I for one would be disappointed if it ceased to also be a cultural organisation that promoted Gaelic culture and supported the development of an inclusive Irish identity that it was originally founded to help nurture and protect.

Quote from: michaelg on March 06, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
  Would a catholic raised in NI be classed as insular in your view if they had no real knowledge or had little or no interst in sports such as hockey and cricket?

I can't speak for johnnycool, but I don't believe so, as they are minority sports on this island. They are even minority sports within the Six Counties. I think cricket is a good game, like to see Ireland do well, watch it if it's on TV and have even tried it in the past, but it's not even in the top 5 sports in the north. If it were the most popular sport in the north, or even within the unionist community, with widespread media coverage of the local game, then yes I would consider a nationalist as insular for not having any real knowledge of cricket.
As things stand, it's hardly inclusive from an "East Coast dwelling Protestant's" perspective.  Quite the opposite in fact.  As such, you cannot really accuse Protestants of insularity if they don't buy into it.
As for your second point, where Gaelic Games are minority sports in predominantly Protestant areas, by the same argument you could also say that Protestants are not being insular by having limited interest in GAA.

I'd have enough general interest in sport to know if 30 odd thousand people turned up to watch Lisnagarvey play Belfast Harlequins in an Irish cup game. I don't buy into hockey or even cricket, but am well aware of its existence and how popular it is.

Is there nationalists into sport unaware of Linfield, the Glens or Coleraine, there may be but I'd very much doubt that.

Being insular and insulated from various sports and culture isn't a one way street but lets be honest if I was to watch sport from BBC NI I'd be led to believe that Ulster rugby, soccer and motorbikes are a stable diet with gaelic football confined to the summer months.
I'd bet most sporting prods have never heard of Slaughneil yet four or five thousand would have been at their recent championship games.

If they watch the local sports bulletins, of course they will.  Do you expect a daily 5 minute GAA update throughout the year?  Local sports are now covered fairly evenly these days.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 04:25:15 PM
While Davitts GAC are fully entitled to hire out their club to anyone they want, they could have choose not to hire their clubhouse to Sinn Féin to show for a film and talk about the Gibraltar 3 last Sunday.

I suspect that wandering into a Falls Road club for a kick about would be difficult enough for even the (lesser spotted) open-minded unionist.  Seeing that event going on down the corridor while you togged out in the dressing room might impede any outreach program.

As I say they are in within their rights (although the fact the posters had Sinn Féin logo could sail close to the wind in terms of rule 1.11) but looking from a far I am not sure it would align with the work of the Ulster GAA outreach program that Michael Hasson has been supporting. 

If they were to host some of the "busting the myths" talks, our a game of 3 halves, that day or even in the run up I think it could have an adverse effect on the participants?

Maybe that a soft Free Stater but that's how it looks from afar.  Equally it could be is that part of the outreach goals is for unionists to become comfortable with Provo events.

/Jim.

Edit:  link to Sinn Féin twitter: https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465 (https://twitter.com/belfastsinnfein/status/968905357132222465)

All of us GAA fans often wax lyrical about clubs being central to their community.  Davitt's GAC are no different from any other club in the country in that regard, they reflect the community from which they draw their support.

It a view they are entitled to

It's a narrow view. It's not particularly helpful

There can't be anything wrong with pointing that out

Not helpful to what or whom?

Not helpful in building a society based upon respect in this part of world.
Not helpful in building a society where all can live amicably side by side
Not helpful in the GAA being able to say its fully playing its part in these civic aims
Not helpful in the GAA getting to tap into a bigger market for players, volunteers and revenue
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 07:46:39 PM
I've said this before but it's worth repeating. It'd do no harm for the GAA to tone down the nationalistic rhetoric in the north in the interests of making itself more accessible to people with a northern protestant background. If they find the naming convention of clubs and competitions to be off-putting then I think that's a legitimate concern. If someone from Portadown wanted to recruit me into his hockey club but it was called "Billy Wright's," flew a union flag at the grounds, and played The Queen before matches I don't think I'd feel terribly safe or welcome going there.

Come on lads, we should be able to do a better job of this. By nailing their colours to the nationalist mast some people in the GAA sometimes undermine their own objectives. Protestants playing Gaelic games in big numbers would do far more to make Irish reunification smoother and easier than butting heads and being confrontational about it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 07:49:06 PM
Do we then have a mass renaming of GAA clubs so that Unionists (majority of whom will not care for the GAA either way) or can we not just promote and educate as much as possible without the need to change the name of one "offensive" hurling club in north derry?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.


Was Michael Glavey a terrorist? Have you proposed renaming your club?


https://sites.google.com/site/michaelglaveysgaa/michaelglaveytheman




https://sites.google.com/site/michaelglaveysgaa/michaelglaveytheman
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 07:49:06 PM
Do we then have a mass renaming of GAA clubs so that Unionists (majority of whom will not care for the GAA either way) or can we not just promote and educate as much as possible without the need to change the name of one "offensive" hurling club in north derry?

It's only a small number of clubs and competitions that are questionable. A good start would be a rule that says any new club can't be named after anyone that was notable for political or politically motivated activity within the last fifty years. Robert Emmet and James Connoly would be fine, Bobby Sands would not. Later, hopefully after more protestants come on board, we could expand the rule and make it retrospective to cover existing clubs and competitions.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:15:50 PM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.


Was Michael Glavey a terrorist? Have you proposed renaming your club?


https://sites.google.com/site/michaelglaveysgaa/michaelglaveytheman




https://sites.google.com/site/michaelglaveysgaa/michaelglaveytheman

My club?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 07:46:39 PM
I've said this before but it's worth repeating. It'd do no harm for the GAA to tone down the nationalistic rhetoric in the north in the interests of making itself more accessible to people with a northern protestant background. If they find the naming convention of clubs and competitions to be off-putting then I think that's a legitimate concern. If someone from Portadown wanted to recruit me into his hockey club but it was called "Billy Wright's," flew a union flag at the grounds, and played The Queen before matches I don't think I'd feel terribly safe or welcome going there.

Come on lads, we should be able to do a better job of this. By nailing their colours to the nationalist mast some people in the GAA sometimes undermine their own objectives. Protestants playing Gaelic games in big numbers would do far more to make Irish reunification smoother and easier than butting heads and being confrontational about it.

+1

But the lads in the north are all on the one page when it comes to being allergic to compromise..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 08:16:18 PM
"I find the name of Kevin Lynch's in Dungiven offensive"

"OK we'll change it"

"Now you see those ones called Pearses, O'Connells, Davitts, Parnells, Clarkes, Emmets, McDermotts...they'll have to go too"

"OK anything else?"

"Yeah, all those clubs called after saints, they don't sound too inclusive?"

"Right you are"

"And we're Unionists, we're not really Gaels, so you know...all in the interests of respect mind you.

"No bother"

"Then there's a right few in that leprechaun language, that's frightens us too...forgot to mention Casement Pk too"

"That's a fair bit of work there Rodney"

"OK last issue, the GAA Official Guide.  I noticed this "1.2 The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes". And while you're at it 1.4 "The Association shall actively support the Irish language, traditional Irish dancing, music, song, and other aspects of Irish culture. It shall foster an awareness and love of the national ideals in the people of Ireland, and assist in promoting a community spirit through its clubs."  Sorry all that's totally beyond the Pale...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 08:28:02 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:15:50 PM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Being allowed to play Gaelic games?

If the GAA heads in the north stopped naming clubs after terrorists and playing the Republic's national anthem (seemingly as much as a fûck you to the other side as any nationalistic statement) it mightn't be such an issue.

The only time either side hear the word compromise is when we play the Aussies in Autumn.


Was Michael Glavey a terrorist? Have you proposed renaming your club?


https://sites.google.com/site/michaelglaveysgaa/michaelglaveytheman




https://sites.google.com/site/michaelglaveysgaa/michaelglaveytheman

My club?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 07:46:39 PM
I've said this before but it's worth repeating. It'd do no harm for the GAA to tone down the nationalistic rhetoric in the north in the interests of making itself more accessible to people with a northern protestant background. If they find the naming convention of clubs and competitions to be off-putting then I think that's a legitimate concern. If someone from Portadown wanted to recruit me into his hockey club but it was called "Billy Wright's," flew a union flag at the grounds, and played The Queen before matches I don't think I'd feel terribly safe or welcome going there.

Come on lads, we should be able to do a better job of this. By nailing their colours to the nationalist mast some people in the GAA sometimes undermine their own objectives. Protestants playing Gaelic games in big numbers would do far more to make Irish reunification smoother and easier than butting heads and being confrontational about it.

+1

But the lads in the north are all on the one page when it comes to being allergic to compromise..
We've been doing compromise since the existence of the state you ignorant fuckwit
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 07:49:06 PM
Do we then have a mass renaming of GAA clubs so that Unionists (majority of whom will not care for the GAA either way) or can we not just promote and educate as much as possible without the need to change the name of one "offensive" hurling club in north derry?

It's only a small number of clubs and competitions that are questionable. A good start would be a rule that says any new club can't be named after anyone that was notable for political or politically motivated activity within the last fifty years. Robert Emmet and James Connoly would be fine, Bobby Sands would not. Later, hopefully after more protestants come on board, we could expand the rule and make it retrospective to cover existing clubs and competitions.
I can think of one club.
One competition of note.
One or two grounds.

If someone can compile a list of all the offensive GAA clubs, competitions and grounds I'd be much obliged.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
My club?

Yes sir your club and the club of the man whose image you wear here. Simple yes/no "Was Glavey a terrorist"?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 07, 2018, 08:59:56 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 07:46:39 PM
I've said this before but it's worth repeating. It'd do no harm for the GAA to tone down the nationalistic rhetoric in the north in the interests of making itself more accessible to people with a northern protestant background. If they find the naming convention of clubs and competitions to be off-putting then I think that's a legitimate concern. If someone from Portadown wanted to recruit me into his hockey club but it was called "Billy Wright's," flew a union flag at the grounds, and played The Queen before matches I don't think I'd feel terribly safe or welcome going there.

Come on lads, we should be able to do a better job of this. By nailing their colours to the nationalist mast some people in the GAA sometimes undermine their own objectives. Protestants playing Gaelic games in big numbers would do far more to make Irish reunification smoother and easier than butting heads and being confrontational about it.

Jaysus it would be a bad turn of affairs if people were to introduce sense and reason into proceedings


If they didn't bother playing the anthem I can't say I'd mind or feel hard done by
If Kevin Lynch's was renamed the Owen Quigg's I think the life of everyone would in some small way enhanced.
Would life be really so terrible if the Mairead Farrell trophy was renamed? I think if there was a trophy named in honour of Billy Wright I would think the organisers were a shower of Cnut determined to say Fcuk You to the other side. The exact same is true of the Mairead Farrell trophy. What would we lose by shedding this gombeenery.

Casement and Pearse are not suitable individuals to honour any more than Fr Brendan Smyth. But that's a different matter
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LooseCannon on March 07, 2018, 09:22:38 PM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
My club?

Yes sir your club and the club of the man whose image you wear here. Simple yes/no "Was Glavey a terrorist"?

I don't think that Syf is a member of the Glaveys club.
He's in the Donie Smith fan club!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 07, 2018, 09:47:41 PM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
My club?

Yes sir your club and the club of the man whose image you wear here. Simple yes/no "Was Glavey a terrorist"?

I wouldn't expect an answer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on March 07, 2018, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
My club?

Yes sir your club and the club of the man whose image you wear here. Simple yes/no "Was Glavey a terrorist"?

The " Bomber Harris Hurling and Football Club"  is a grand name if Dungiven feel like a change is needed
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LooseCannon on March 07, 2018, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
My club?

Yes sir your club and the club of the man whose image you wear here. Simple yes/no "Was Glavey a terrorist"?

He attempted to burn down an empty RIC barracks, hardly terrorism. It was commonplace at the time. Perhaps an arsonist at best.
So, no he wasn't a terrorist.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: under the bar on March 07, 2018, 11:17:11 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

So in your beady-eye view promoting Irish Traditional Music and the Irish Language is equivalent to the GAA being like the Wolfetones?  Have you ever heard of the CLG 🙄🙄
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: under the bar on March 07, 2018, 11:21:43 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome.

What has the GAA or Irish music and Language got to to do with religion?   Try reading the history of the GAA and CLG stop assuming what Gregory Campbell, Arlene Foster and  Ruth Dudley Edwards says is true you complete  knob.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:31:09 PM
The naming of clubs/pitches after IRA men was of it's time. But you could find a problem with any naming.

Kevin the local butcher was a great clubman. We named the u12 tournament after him. Then we find out later, he was involved in selling that horse meat. Right that's it, time to rename the u-12 cup! Frank, great clubman, we named the pitch after him, turns out he was against gay marriage. That's it, pitch will be renamed. Tony the minor manager was spotted in the local paper giving two fingers to the Orangemen marching past the club. There'll be no car park named after Tony.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 11:32:46 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.
Unionists who attack Irish culture are morons. They're the type of Unionist I don't want anywhere near the GAA. No amount of outreach will change their attitudes in any case. The Protestants/Unionists that I want to welcome into the GAA are the ones that are indifferent to it (like the thousands of nationalists that are also indifferent) - this is where the GAA needs to target and not the extremists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: longballin on March 07, 2018, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:31:09 PM
The naming of clubs/pitches after IRA men was of it's time. But you could find a problem with any naming.

Kevin the local butcher was a great clubman. We named the u12 tournament after him. Then we find out later, he was involved in selling that horse meat. Right that's it, time to rename the u-12 cup! Frank, great clubman, we named the pitch after him, turns out he was against gay marriage. That's it, pitch will be renamed. Tony the minor manager was spotted in the local paper giving two fingers to the Orangemen marching past the club. There'll be no car park named after Tony.

There's a lot of loose cannons in your club!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:38:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 07, 2018, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:31:09 PM
The naming of clubs/pitches after IRA men was of it's time. But you could find a problem with any naming.

Kevin the local butcher was a great clubman. We named the u12 tournament after him. Then we find out later, he was involved in selling that horse meat. Right that's it, time to rename the u-12 cup! Frank, great clubman, we named the pitch after him, turns out he was against gay marriage. That's it, pitch will be renamed. Tony the minor manager was spotted in the local paper giving two fingers to the Orangemen marching past the club. There'll be no car park named after Tony.

There's a lot of loose cannons in your club!!

That ain't the half of it  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:42:32 PM
A lot of Protestant want nothing to do with the gaa, Irish language etc, but how many northern Catholics are interested in playing hockey or cricket or wish to learn the Ulster Scots "language"? Should Protestant culture be doing more to recruit northern Catholics?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:45:18 PM
Donald, I believe the anthem and flag should be removed but not to placate unionists. I just don't think it has a place in the gaa
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

I would say keep doing all those things. I would hope they are open to anyone curious about them.

Now what I would say is that Ulster GAA could save a bit of money on glossy brochures and travel expenses for outreach officers to give "myth busting" talks about the GAA and republicanism. It's money down the drain when a member club can host a Sinn Féin film and talk commemoration night for Gibraltar 3.

No need for the onslaught of justifications, I have heard them before. But don't kid ourselves that it's compatible with the program which Ulster GAA launched and publicised.

Neither can you gripe about those who say it's not for them when such an event is advertised or bemoan their ignorance of our organization and sports.

We continue on as we are and drop the pretence and the money saved from the outreach program can go somewhere else.

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:54:45 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:42:32 PM
A lot of Protestant want nothing to do with the gaa, Irish language etc, but how many northern Catholics are interested in playing hockey or cricket or wish to learn the Ulster Scots "language"? Should Protestant culture be doing more to recruit northern Catholics?

Of course. When I was primary school age there was a summer scheme at the school where the local education authority dropped off a big box of games and sports equipment and got some volunteers to supervise us during the day. There was all sorts of stuff in there. Frisbees, badminton racquets, cricket bats, tennis racquets, chess boards, draughts boards and so on. We got stuck into all of it. We tried all of those activities and had a great time.

Kids in Catholic schools get to play all sorts of non-Gaelic sports as part of PE, I loved playing hockey at the time. I see no reason why sports like rugby and cricket shouldn't be something all youngsters are exposed to, just like hurling or Gaelic football. Children will gravitate to whatever sports they enjoy, and they shouldn't be limited in their access to sports by artificial sectarian barriers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:57:38 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

If you could double the size of your club by recruiting more protestants, would you do it? Serious question.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 11:59:20 PM
Davitts are on the falls road. Not sure there are many Protestants living in their catchment area..

Clubs in towns like Limavady, Portstewart, Lurgan, Portadown, Banbridge, Ballymena, Cookstown, Omagh etc should have resources directed their way when it comes to Unionist outreach.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 12:47:15 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 11:59:20 PM
Davitts are on the falls road. Not sure there are many Protestants living in their catchment area..

Clubs in towns like Limavady, Portstewart, Lurgan, Portadown, Banbridge, Ballymena, Cookstown, Omagh etc should have resources directed their way when it comes to Unionist outreach.

Shankill Rd?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 04:07:08 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:42:32 PM
A lot of Protestant want nothing to do with the gaa, Irish language etc, but how many northern Catholics are interested in playing hockey or cricket or wish to learn the Ulster Scots "language"? Should Protestant culture be doing more to recruit northern Catholics?

The comedy no one in the north truly recognises is these are two white, Christian groups of people speaking the same language and from the exact same corner of a small island off the coast of Europe. The gaps culturally between unionists and republicans are minuscule compared to that between just about any other opposing set of groups you could name.

It's a division constructed on the lie that there is much of a division to begin with. Truly moderate republicans and unionists are nearly the same people.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 08, 2018, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:57:38 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

If you could double the size of your club by recruiting more protestants, would you do it? Serious question.

If they wanted to come in and had no problems with what the club stood for and it's traditions (name etc)yeah. But I wouldn't go changing anything just to improve recruitment
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 08, 2018, 07:19:26 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 12:47:15 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 11:59:20 PM
Davitts are on the falls road. Not sure there are many Protestants living in their catchment area..

Clubs in towns like Limavady, Portstewart, Lurgan, Portadown, Banbridge, Ballymena, Cookstown, Omagh etc should have resources directed their way when it comes to Unionist outreach.

Shankill Rd?
*traditional catchment area
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 08:03:25 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 04:07:08 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:42:32 PM
A lot of Protestant want nothing to do with the gaa, Irish language etc, but how many northern Catholics are interested in playing hockey or cricket or wish to learn the Ulster Scots "language"? Should Protestant culture be doing more to recruit northern Catholics?

The comedy no one in the north truly recognises is these are two white, Christian groups of people speaking the same language and from the exact same corner of a small island off the coast of Europe. The gaps culturally between unionists and republicans are minuscule compared to that between just about any other opposing set of groups you could name.

It's a division constructed on the lie that there is much of a division to begin with. Truly moderate republicans and unionists are nearly the same people.

Could the same not be said of us all Syf? I mean us people living down in Connacht and those up in NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LooseCannon on March 08, 2018, 08:10:10 AM
Quote from: longballin on March 07, 2018, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:31:09 PM
The naming of clubs/pitches after IRA men was of it's time. But you could find a problem with any naming.

Kevin the local butcher was a great clubman. We named the u12 tournament after him. Then we find out later, he was involved in selling that horse meat. Right that's it, time to rename the u-12 cup! Frank, great clubman, we named the pitch after him, turns out he was against gay marriage. That's it, pitch will be renamed. Tony the minor manager was spotted in the local paper giving two fingers to the Orangemen marching past the club. There'll be no car park named after Tony.

There's a lot of loose cannons in your club!!

Say what!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 08, 2018, 08:49:11 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 11:59:20 PM
Davitts are on the falls road. Not sure there are many Protestants living in their catchment area..

Clubs in towns like Limavady, Portstewart, Lurgan, Portadown, Banbridge, Ballymena, Cookstown, Omagh etc should have resources directed their way when it comes to Unionist outreach.

Brilliant!  Hosting Sinn Féin events, commemorating IRA members won't harm the perception of the GAA are all. We can point to some Ulster Council delegate giving a talk a few miles down the road, explain that it's a myth to link association with republicanism.

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 08:55:02 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:57:38 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

If you could double the size of your club by recruiting more protestants, would you do it? Serious question.

Eamonn, when did you stop beating your wife?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 08:56:02 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 12:47:15 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 11:59:20 PM
Davitts are on the falls road. Not sure there are many Protestants living in their catchment area..

Clubs in towns like Limavady, Portstewart, Lurgan, Portadown, Banbridge, Ballymena, Cookstown, Omagh etc should have resources directed their way when it comes to Unionist outreach.

Shankill Rd?

What colour is the sky where you are??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 08:58:56 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:31:09 PM
The naming of clubs/pitches after IRA men was of it's time. But you could find a problem with any naming.

Kevin the local butcher was a great clubman. We named the u12 tournament after him. Then we find out later, he was involved in selling that horse meat. Right that's it, time to rename the u-12 cup! Frank, great clubman, we named the pitch after him, turns out he was against gay marriage. That's it, pitch will be renamed. Tony the minor manager was spotted in the local paper giving two fingers to the Orangemen marching past the club. There'll be no car park named after Tony.

To be fair Tony shouldn't have done that!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: MoChara on March 08, 2018, 09:03:29 AM
I think people here are far to eager to give up who we are in the hope of getting more people involved.

Perhaps our clubs should give up any and all signs of Irishness to attract others, we might as well go the whole way turn ourselves into Soccer clubs sure that way no-one would be offended by who we are, have a side team of Rugby so the more refined would want to join too, Bland FC could be the new name.

I can understand the thought behind it and of course I'm using hyperbole, and some measures to promote the inclusiveness of the GAA  but we could quickly go down the route of being everything to everyone and ending up being nothing. The word that is always used about the GAA is community, if you stop reflecting your community what are we left with.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 09:07:33 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:42:32 PM
A lot of Protestant want nothing to do with the gaa, Irish language etc, but how many northern Catholics are interested in playing hockey or cricket or wish to learn the Ulster Scots "language"? Should Protestant culture be doing more to recruit northern Catholics?

Not into hockey but cricket is a great game.  I already can speak Ulster Scots.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 09:09:22 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 07, 2018, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: Mayo Mick on March 07, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
My club?

Yes sir your club and the club of the man whose image you wear here. Simple yes/no "Was Glavey a terrorist"?

The " Bomber Harris Hurling and Football Club"  is a grand name if Dungiven feel like a change is needed

I'd bet my house if they renamed the club with that, there'd still be no Unionists joining.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 09:45:04 AM
Davitts And Gortnamona, would be the closest to the Shankill along with Ardoyne, be some boost to their ranks were they to recruit from the Shankill, though I remember many a time heading over the Shankill in the car or Minibus to play Ardoyne and stopping at the lights on the Glencairn estate area, if you had your tops showing there was usually a groups of lads ready for you!

Ah the days!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyser soze on March 08, 2018, 09:48:08 AM
A lot of people on here commenting who obviously have not the faintest idea what they are talking about and have obviously had very few dealings with unionists. To give an example of the type of people you are dealing with I will refer to last night's Nolan show. A unionist commentator, whose name I cannot remember but I think he was a former chairman of the Ulster Unionist party, (thats the reasonable unionist party for those of you not in the know 😉) in the course of a discussion on the Irish language, demanded that the Irish government set up a public enquiry to establish the extent of the ethnic cleansing of protestants in the 26 counties since 1921.

How can you deal reasonably with people such as these. Syferus opines that we all have much more in common than we have to divide us. I would contend that people such as this have commonality only with oddities such as Syferus and his ilk. There is no reasoning or bargaining or working together for the greater good with dyed in the wool unionists or loyalists.  These people are interested only in division and supremacy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
We all know that dyed in the wool " loyalist unionists" won't go near the GAA or the Irish Language or anything that might mildly snack if being distinctly Irish.
However that's still no reason for GAA clubs allowing their premises to be used by 1 political party.
Again there's no need in 2018 for GAA Cubs to be flying the Tricolour compulsorily or for murdering the Anthem before every half baked game.
"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 09:58:18 AM
If you go back in history to 1798 the United Irish men included catholics and Presbyterians neither of whom benefited from the status quo which was set up for church of Ireland prods. Wolfe Tone was Protestant for example.
The authorities panicked and brought in the 1801 act of union which extended Benefits to presbyterians.
By the time 1848 rolled around Presbyterians had no incentive to ally theselves with catholics.
This was reinforced in the 1910s and 1920s and the dynamic led to the establishment of Norn Irn which at the time had a strong economy. Economics was the key influence. Aligning with the British was lucrative.
If the country was being divided today NI would not be rich enough to secede  .

The historic arrangement is only 220 years old and the UK economy is banjaxed. So is the NI economy.

The strategic rationale for a continuation of NI is not clear. Maybe the leaders could join a few dots to change the dynamic but Stormont is blocked and no big decisions are being made.

Unbelievable Jeff.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
We all know that dyed in the wool " loyalist unionists" won't go near the GAA or the Irish Language or anything that might mildly snack if being distinctly Irish.
However that's still no reason for GAA clubs allowing their premises to be used by 1 political party.
Again there's no need in 2018 for GAA Cubs to be flying the Tricolour compulsorily or for murdering the Anthem before every half baked game.
"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.

Yes, but not at the expense of our own community.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 08, 2018, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
However that's still no reason for GAA clubs allowing their premises to be used by 1 political party.

Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:24:08 AM
Yes, but not at the expense of our own community.

A couple of genuine questions Benny, from a "free stater" who maybe one of those that "doesn't understand":

Would communities or their pursuit of their identity through our national games be adversely impacted by Ulster GAA clubs not hosting republican/Sinn Féin events? 
If they avoid hosting tournaments/events that have names/medals of any participants in the most recent troubles?

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 10:33:55 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
We all know that dyed in the wool " loyalist unionists" won't go near the GAA or the Irish Language or anything that might mildly snack if being distinctly Irish.  I
However that's still no reason for GAA clubs allowing their premises to be used by 1 political party.
Again there's no need in 2018 for GAA Cubs to be flying the Tricolour compulsorily or for murdering the Anthem before every half baked game.
"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.
John Robb saw the writing on the wall and  spent years trying to engage other unionists. Nothing happened.  The only thing likely to change minds is economics.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 08, 2018, 10:45:09 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
We all know that dyed in the wool " loyalist unionists" won't go near the GAA or the Irish Language or anything that might mildly snack if being distinctly Irish.
However that's still no reason for GAA clubs allowing their premises to be used by 1 political party.
Again there's no need in 2018 for GAA Cubs to be flying the Tricolour compulsorily or for murdering the Anthem before every half baked game.
"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.

Not sure of the Davitts circumstances and how or what way they funded their club premises, but if they were in receipt of funding from the various bodies in the north they have to make their facilities available to all sections of the community and that would include the Shinners.

If the loyalist knee breakers also wanted to book their facilities then the Davitts couldn't prevent them.

GAA facilities the length and breadth of Ireland have been used by political parties, so no biggie IMO.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on March 08, 2018, 10:48:53 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 07:49:06 PM
Do we then have a mass renaming of GAA clubs so that Unionists (majority of whom will not care for the GAA either way) or can we not just promote and educate as much as possible without the need to change the name of one "offensive" hurling club in north derry?

It's only a small number of clubs and competitions that are questionable. A good start would be a rule that says any new club can't be named after anyone that was notable for political or politically motivated activity within the last fifty years. Robert Emmet and James Connoly would be fine, Bobby Sands would not. Later, hopefully after more protestants come on board, we could expand the rule and make it retrospective to cover existing clubs and competitions.
Eamonnca,
that's a very southern view of the history of the island of Ireland( you can`t airbrush partition and romanticise 1916 and demonise events in the north since then) , I am not a dyed in the wool republican but Bobby Sands was a poet, leader and an MP voted for by a fair amount of people,I see no difference in him and james Connolly, in fact at death Sands had a mandate, which was more than Connolly and Pearce had.

lets be blunt about it, the GAA in a nationalist organisation with its roots in ensuring the culture of Ireland is maintained, most unionists rightly or wrongly in the North see it as that, for me I have no issues with their view and respect it..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyser soze on March 08, 2018, 10:53:48 AM
There is a section of civic unionism that is happy to interact with the Gaa, I know of clubs that do a lot of outreach and have non nationalists playing for them. Having said that I dont see why the flag cannot be flown regardless, people who want to reach across the divide recognise that our allegiance is to the flag as opposed to their allegiance to the Union flag. If it were not so there would be no divide needing crossed.

Gaa premises should not be used for political purposes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 11:03:40 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM

"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.

Yes, but not at the expense of our own community.
Ní thuigim.
Please explain???
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: MoChara on March 08, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 08, 2018, 10:53:48 AM
There is a section of civic unionism that is happy to interact with the Gaa, I know of clubs that do a lot of outreach and have non nationalists playing for them. Having said that I dont see why the flag cannot be flown regardless, people who want to reach across the divide recognise that our allegiance is to the flag as opposed to their allegiance to the Union flag. If it were not so there would be no divide needing crossed.

Gaa premises should not be used for political purposes.


Tricky bit with this is where does history and culture stop and politics begin, obviously if its a brazen platform for how great a party are, its obvious, but say a historical talk about having to struggle to set up a GAA club in an orange state, it's clearly all 3.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 11:03:40 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM

"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.

Yes, but not at the expense of our own community.
Ní thuigim.
Please explain???

Well, time, money and effort spent pandering to unionists for little return. We should be focusing on improving structures, facilities, coaches etc already there for locals. The gaa is immersed in Irish culture, language, identity etc, so a lot of unionists don't relate to that and never will no matter what is done.

I'm not saying don't reach out to unionists, but our priority is our local kids, local schools etc. The people whose identity is an Irish one and who will be connectd to the gaa all their lives.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 12:17:09 PM
Instead of the GAA changing NI needs institutions and movements that transcend political divisions.

This is US related but similar

"The US needs "some sort of synthesis on the larger postindustrial/populism war. Over a century ago industrialisation brought on culture clash between agrarian populist and the genteel Victoria aristocrats.  Theodore Roosevelt transcended the fight by inventing a new kind of American nationalism. Meanwhile the progressives cleaned up elite corruption and nurtured a square deal for those left behind by technological change. Cultural leaders introduced new institutions and community forms like the Boy Scouts and the settlement house that drew from both cultures replaced them.  Today we need another grand synthesis that can move us beyond the current divide, a synthesis that is neither redneck nor hipster but draws from both worlds to create a new social vision . Progress on guns will be possible when the culture war subsides, not before. "
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 11:03:40 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM

"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.

Yes, but not at the expense of our own community.
Ní thuigim.
Please explain???

Well, time, money and effort spent pandering to unionists for little return. We should be focusing on improving structures, facilities, coaches etc already there for locals. The gaa is immersed in Irish culture, language, identity etc, so a lot of unionists don't relate to that and never will no matter what is done.

I'm not saying don't reach out to unionists, but our priority is our local kids, local schools etc. The people whose identity is an Irish one and who will be connectd to the gaa all their lives.
Local Catholic schools and local Catholic children only then?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Minder on March 08, 2018, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

I was just gonna post the same thing
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ned on March 08, 2018, 12:28:06 PM
Trevor Ringland was on BBC last night. The jist of what he said was "I had no problem playing rugby for Ireland and representing the Irish flag and national anthem but I did not represent the Irish flag and anthem promoted by the IRA". Didn't agree with all he said but there lies the main problem. He could see the symbols for what they represent and mean, most unionists can't and abhor these because it's what they have learned without any great reasoning.
Any dilution of our identity through the GAA is unwarranted. The world over streets, buildings, sports stadia, etc are named after political or military people. Leave these as they are, that is not our problem to contend with.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 11:03:40 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM

"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.

Yes, but not at the expense of our own community.
Ní thuigim.
Please explain???

Well, time, money and effort spent pandering to unionists for little return. We should be focusing on improving structures, facilities, coaches etc already there for locals. The gaa is immersed in Irish culture, language, identity etc, so a lot of unionists don't relate to that and never will no matter what is done.

I'm not saying don't reach out to unionists, but our priority is our local kids, local schools etc. The people whose identity is an Irish one and who will be connectd to the gaa all their lives.
Local Catholic schools and local Catholic children only then?

I didn't say that.

Anyway, schools are only part of it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 12:37:21 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

I wouldn't have used those exact words, but yes, I'd agree with that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 12:41:05 PM
With the ILA thing the way it is, the GAA will be affected too because it promotes Irish on jerseys, grounds, programs etc. And that will drive unionists further from having an association with the GAA. We have the DUP and SF to thank for that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on March 08, 2018, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 12:37:21 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

I wouldn't have used those exact words, but yes, I'd agree with that.

+1
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 07, 2018, 11:42:32 PM
A lot of Protestant want nothing to do with the gaa, Irish language etc, but how many northern Catholics are interested in playing hockey or cricket or wish to learn the Ulster Scots "language"? Should Protestant culture be doing more to recruit northern Catholics?

Parking Ulster Scots the other 2 do try.
Cricket is very regional though. A lot easier to get a catholic from NW Tyrone to play cricket than say Fermanagh or Newry
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:30:59 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2018, 09:03:29 AM
I think people here are far to eager to give up who we are in the hope of getting more people involved.

Perhaps our clubs should give up any and all signs of Irishness to attract others, we might as well go the whole way turn ourselves into Soccer clubs sure that way no-one would be offended by who we are, have a side team of Rugby so the more refined would want to join too, Bland FC could be the new name.

I can understand the thought behind it and of course I'm using hyperbole, and some measures to promote the inclusiveness of the GAA  but we could quickly go down the route of being everything to everyone and ending up being nothing. The word that is always used about the GAA is community, if you stop reflecting your community what are we left with.

But are you really being asked to give up that much?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:34:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 11:03:40 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 09:57:39 AM

"Outreaching" to moderate or apolitical Protestants or other pro union people should be encouraged.

Yes, but not at the expense of our own community.
Ní thuigim.
Please explain???

Well, time, money and effort spent pandering to unionists for little return. We should be focusing on improving structures, facilities, coaches etc already there for locals. The gaa is immersed in Irish culture, language, identity etc, so a lot of unionists don't relate to that and never will no matter what is done.

I'm not saying don't reach out to unionists, but our priority is our local kids, local schools etc. The people whose identity is an Irish one and who will be connectd to the gaa all their lives.

Some of those kids are unionists (or will grow up to be). Some go to local schools and are part of the local community
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

Fair play to you for setting out how you feel. I get the impression there are others who agree with you but are too embarrassed to admit to it.

By setting out that Catholic kids outside the GAA fold our "own" but Protestants living alongside them are not you are already setting out the organisation as a catholic one. An unhelpful starting position.

To dress up some minor changes you are being asked to make as "licking the holes of some loyalist knackers" probably means you are not going to be at the vanguard of moving this place forward

The GAA can't and won't be forced to make the necessary changes. But if it takes that intransigent stance then it will come at a price

We know that the UK civil service is looking at housing, schooling and public expenditure in NI to try to reduce the long term deficit. In that regard there is a realisation that funding segregated housing, segregated schooling and capital projects that maintain cultural separation is a bad use of public funds (as more funds have to be found to manage the ongoing impacts of the lack of social cohesion).

If you don't reach out to unionism you won't be able to reach out for the cheque. The choice is yours
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

Fair play to you for setting out how you feel. I get the impression there are others who agree with you but are too embarrassed to admit to it.

By setting out that Catholic kids outside the GAA fold our "own" but Protestants living alongside them are not you are already setting out the organisation as a catholic one. An unhelpful starting position.

To dress up some minor changes you are being asked to make as "licking the holes of some loyalist knackers" probably means you are not going to be at the vanguard of moving this place forward

The GAA can't and won't be forced to make the necessary changes. But if it takes that intransigent stance then it will come at a price

We know that the UK civil service is looking at housing, schooling and public expenditure in NI to try to reduce the long term deficit. In that regard there is a realisation that funding segregated housing, segregated schooling and capital projects that maintain cultural separation is a bad use of public funds (as more funds have to be found to manage the ongoing impacts of the lack of social cohesion).

If you don't reach out to unionism you won't be able to reach out for the cheque. The choice is yours

Google "Cantrell Close"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

Fair play to you for setting out how you feel. I get the impression there are others who agree with you but are too embarrassed to admit to it.

By setting out that Catholic kids outside the GAA fold our "own" but Protestants living alongside them are not you are already setting out the organisation as a catholic one. An unhelpful starting position.

To dress up some minor changes you are being asked to make as "licking the holes of some loyalist knackers" probably means you are not going to be at the vanguard of moving this place forward

The GAA can't and won't be forced to make the necessary changes. But if it takes that intransigent stance then it will come at a price

We know that the UK civil service is looking at housing, schooling and public expenditure in NI to try to reduce the long term deficit. In that regard there is a realisation that funding segregated housing, segregated schooling and capital projects that maintain cultural separation is a bad use of public funds (as more funds have to be found to manage the ongoing impacts of the lack of social cohesion).

If you don't reach out to unionism you won't be able to reach out for the cheque. The choice is yours

I never mentioned religions at all, you added that in.

my point is simple we have thousands upon thousands of nationalist kids in urban areas who arent yet active in GAA, Derry city being the biggest misnomer of all . They would be easier brought into the GAA than someone who is ideologically and multi generationally opposed to everything of an irish culture.
Its not sectarian, its merely common sense why should the GAA attempt the impossible for the sake of what maybe 10 kids joining when 1000s are available if Croke Park and HQ together with the respective county boards got their fingers out of their holes and invested in reclaiming the decay in urban nationalist areas
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 02:01:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

Fair play to you for setting out how you feel. I get the impression there are others who agree with you but are too embarrassed to admit to it.

By setting out that Catholic kids outside the GAA fold our "own" but Protestants living alongside them are not you are already setting out the organisation as a catholic one. An unhelpful starting position.

To dress up some minor changes you are being asked to make as "licking the holes of some loyalist knackers" probably means you are not going to be at the vanguard of moving this place forward

The GAA can't and won't be forced to make the necessary changes. But if it takes that intransigent stance then it will come at a price

We know that the UK civil service is looking at housing, schooling and public expenditure in NI to try to reduce the long term deficit. In that regard there is a realisation that funding segregated housing, segregated schooling and capital projects that maintain cultural separation is a bad use of public funds (as more funds have to be found to manage the ongoing impacts of the lack of social cohesion).

If you don't reach out to unionism you won't be able to reach out for the cheque. The choice is yours

Google "Cantrell Close"

But the UVF have gone away surely !!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 02:37:33 PM
I know a chap who describes himself as "of planter stock", lives in a large  town where few Nationalists live.
He would be mildly pro Union but not wound up about it, probably votes Alliance.
His children are in a localish Comhaltas branch and love traditional Irish music.
As well as soccer oriented west Belfast and Derry City youngsters shouldn't the GAA  be reaching out to my acquaintances kids and what would be wrong with so doing?

This man does exist (unlike Enda Kenny's or Eugene McGee's people).
How many more like him?

In the longer  term it's people like him who will decide the "Border poll"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 02:37:33 PM
I know a chap who describes himself as "of planter stock", lives in a large  town where few Nationalists live.
He would be mildly pro Union but not wound up about it, probably votes Alliance.
His children are in a localish Comhaltas branch and love traditional Irish music.
As well as soccer oriented west Belfast and Derry City youngsters shouldn't the GAA  be reaching out to my acquaintances kids and what would be wrong with so doing?

This man does exist (unlike Enda Kenny's or Eugene McGee's people).
How many more like him?

In the longer  term it's people like him who will decide the "Border poll"

it may well be but the GAA remit is to promote and maximise participation in its own sports not decide the result of any border poll,

i've no issue with anyone of any ilk joining the GAA but i see it more strategic and feasible to sort of the areas i mentioned firstly
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 08, 2018, 03:38:00 PM
The difficulty the GAA has in the north is that it is still very much parish based and that makes it hard in a segregated society to attract kids in, we have two clubs in our parish and kids will only play for the team at their end. So its difficult to reach out to kids from outside. In relation to Irishness why should the GAA as an Irish cultural organisation as well as sporting one not promote Irish language and culture. To many nationalists it is also still the only place our identity and ethnicity is officially recognised in a state dominated by the culture and symbolism of one side. It grates on me sometimes to hear SF use Irish badly (in many cases) but at least they are trying. If all of us my self included used a little day by day that would go some way towards keeping it a living language. I (in spite of my pledges) watched a little bit of Nolan last night...depressing and shocked at Chris McGimpsey. Had to laugh though at the boy from Shankill saying there'd be no Irish place names were he lived.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:49:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 02:37:33 PM
I know a chap who describes himself as "of planter stock", lives in a large  town where few Nationalists live.
He would be mildly pro Union but not wound up about it, probably votes Alliance.
His children are in a localish Comhaltas branch and love traditional Irish music.
As well as soccer oriented west Belfast and Derry City youngsters shouldn't the GAA  be reaching out to my acquaintances kids and what would be wrong with so doing?

This man does exist (unlike Enda Kenny's or Eugene McGee's people).
How many more like him?

In the longer  term it's people like him who will decide the "Border poll"

Shinners do compromise about as well as the DUP do it. It's a pity both sides ended up empowering the loopy extremist parties rather than the moderate ones. Every time a Shinner throws stones at the unionists without acknowledging their own massive failings they drift further from the point of the peace process and eventual unification. Bang, right in the foot.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 08, 2018, 04:08:49 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:49:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 02:37:33 PM
I know a chap who describes himself as "of planter stock", lives in a large  town where few Nationalists live.
He would be mildly pro Union but not wound up about it, probably votes Alliance.
His children are in a localish Comhaltas branch and love traditional Irish music.
As well as soccer oriented west Belfast and Derry City youngsters shouldn't the GAA  be reaching out to my acquaintances kids and what would be wrong with so doing?

This man does exist (unlike Enda Kenny's or Eugene McGee's people).
How many more like him?

In the longer  term it's people like him who will decide the "Border poll"

Shinners do compromise about as well as the DUP do it. It's a pity both sides ended up empowering the loopy extremist parties rather than the moderate ones. Every time a Shinner throws stones at the unionists without acknowledging their own massive failings they drift further from the point of the peace process and eventual unification. Bang, right in the foot.

That must be why Sinn Fein led councils share out the top jobs amongst the various parties, unionist and all and the DUP led councils don't...
That must be why Sinn Fein were prepared to accept a standalone Ulster Scots act but the DUP weren't prepared to accept an Irish Language act.
Lazy bullshit and I'm no shinnerbot as you would say.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 04:12:05 PM
nobody does compromise quite like Snarlene
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 08, 2018, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 08, 2018, 04:08:49 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:49:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 02:37:33 PM
I know a chap who describes himself as "of planter stock", lives in a large  town where few Nationalists live.
He would be mildly pro Union but not wound up about it, probably votes Alliance.
His children are in a localish Comhaltas branch and love traditional Irish music.
As well as soccer oriented west Belfast and Derry City youngsters shouldn't the GAA  be reaching out to my acquaintances kids and what would be wrong with so doing?

This man does exist (unlike Enda Kenny's or Eugene McGee's people).
How many more like him?

In the longer  term it's people like him who will decide the "Border poll"

Shinners do compromise about as well as the DUP do it. It's a pity both sides ended up empowering the loopy extremist parties rather than the moderate ones. Every time a Shinner throws stones at the unionists without acknowledging their own massive failings they drift further from the point of the peace process and eventual unification. Bang, right in the foot.

That must be why Sinn Fein led councils share out the top jobs amongst the various parties, unionist and all and the DUP led councils don't...
That must be why Sinn Fein were prepared to accept a standalone Ulster Scots act but the DUP weren't prepared to accept an Irish Language act.
Lazy bullshit and I'm no shinnerbot as you would say.

I wouldn't even bother Johnny. His posts are designed to get a reaction. Even in the rape tread he is deliberately provocative and condescending to try and goad a reaction. Pathetic really.     
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 08, 2018, 05:16:51 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI

Did you know him?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 05:36:50 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 08, 2018, 09:48:08 AM
A lot of people on here commenting who obviously have not the faintest idea what they are talking about and have obviously had very few dealings with unionists. To give an example of the type of people you are dealing with I will refer to last night's Nolan show. A unionist commentator, whose name I cannot remember but I think he was a former chairman of the Ulster Unionist party, (thats the reasonable unionist party for those of you not in the know 😉) in the course of a discussion on the Irish language, demanded that the Irish government set up a public enquiry to establish the extent of the ethnic cleansing of protestants in the 26 counties since 1921.

How can you deal reasonably with people such as these. Syferus opines that we all have much more in common than we have to divide us. I would contend that people such as this have commonality only with oddities such as Syferus and his ilk. There is no reasoning or bargaining or working together for the greater good with dyed in the wool unionists or loyalists.  These people are interested only in division and supremacy.

If this presumptuous comment is directed at me, I'd better explain where I'm coming from.

I grew up in a mixed area. Protestants and Catholics living on the same country road in a small hamlet. The wider rural area was also mixed. On our road there was an orange parade every year. The Protestant neighbours would go out and watch, the Catholics would sit in the house and pass no remarks about it for the couple of minutes it took to pass. We all got along as neighbours like in any normal country. The nearby town, Lurgan, was about 50/50 prod/taig but divided down the middle with a small Protestant enclave in the catholic end of the town (since turned Catholic). I went through the Catholic school system until age 16 when I went to the tech which was mixed. We had Protestants and Catholics in the same class, and for all of us it was our first experience of this. Some of our teachers were protestant, some were Catholic, and in a lot of cases we didn't know what they were and didn't particularly care anyway. I've also worked in numerous companies around the area with people from all backgrounds.

So I have considerable experience dealing with unionists and I can assure you that the kind of loudmouth who goes on the Nolan show, like the blowhards on Talkback, are not representative of what we're dealing with on the ground. It's a certain type of person who goes on that show and a certain "Tonbridge Wells" type who listens to it regularly. There's a lot more moderation in unionism than you'd think. There are plenty of people from the unionist tradition who may not be convertible to the politics of nationalism, but they would be interested in Irish culture if it were more accessible to them.

For those saying we have to "drop everything we stand for and become soccer clubs" in order to attract more unionists, this is missing the point. We don't have to drop our games or our Irishness. The only thing we need to drop is overt displays of political nationalism. Stick to promoting Irish culture. Depoliticise it, don't weaponise it. It's not just for nationalists. It's for everybody.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 05:43:36 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
I never mentioned religions at all, you added that in.

my point is simple we have thousands upon thousands of nationalist kids in urban areas who arent yet active in GAA, Derry city being the biggest misnomer of all . They would be easier brought into the GAA than someone who is ideologically and multi generationally opposed to everything of an irish culture.
Its not sectarian, its merely common sense why should the GAA attempt the impossible for the sake of what maybe 10 kids joining when 1000s are available if Croke Park and HQ together with the respective county boards got their fingers out of their holes and invested in reclaiming the decay in urban nationalist areas

It's not sectarian to prioritize the recruitment of Catholics and to dismiss recruitment of Protestants as "impossible?"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ONARAGGATIP on March 08, 2018, 06:03:28 PM
our local club promotes the culture, there are Irish language classes, there is a trad night once a month. It is imo a welcoming club for unionists, we have a few young lads from the local rugby club who play for our underage teams and they are excellent players already, strong with great co-ordination skills, it is something I hope continues, some of these lads are from strong unionist tradition but their parents send them to keep them skilled during the summer months, the kids love the gaelic football so its a win win all round. At the same time at our presentation night one of the protestant parents was over talking to me and another parent came past and said I hope we skelp the huns next weekend, referring of course to an old firm game, I felt a bit scundered even though I am a Celtic fan also, the protestant lad never took it under his notice but I didn't feel comfortable with him having to even hear that. As for Syferus, I would sooner have 1000 unionists at the club than 1 of him.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 08, 2018, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI

I think Smel, you'll find that that is not the case. You will find he means a great deal to the majority of people and those others who put down their lives.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 07:23:23 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2018, 03:38:00 PM
The difficulty the GAA has in the north is that it is still very much parish based and that makes it hard in a segregated society to attract kids in, we have two clubs in our parish and kids will only play for the team at their end. So its difficult to reach out to kids from outside. In relation to Irishness why should the GAA as an Irish cultural organisation as well as sporting one not promote Irish language and culture. To many nationalists it is also still the only place our identity and ethnicity is officially recognised in a state dominated by the culture and symbolism of one side. It grates on me sometimes to hear SF use Irish badly (in many cases) but at least they are trying. If all of us my self included used a little day by day that would go some way towards keeping it a living language. I (in spite of my pledges) watched a little bit of Nolan last night...depressing and shocked at Chris McGimpsey. Had to laugh though at the boy from Shankill saying there'd be no Irish place names were he lived.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this but I'm not suggesting that the GAA should stop promoting Irish language and culture. I've never met anyone who did suggest such a thing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:14:07 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 07:23:23 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2018, 03:38:00 PM
The difficulty the GAA has in the north is that it is still very much parish based and that makes it hard in a segregated society to attract kids in, we have two clubs in our parish and kids will only play for the team at their end. So its difficult to reach out to kids from outside. In relation to Irishness why should the GAA as an Irish cultural organisation as well as sporting one not promote Irish language and culture. To many nationalists it is also still the only place our identity and ethnicity is officially recognised in a state dominated by the culture and symbolism of one side. It grates on me sometimes to hear SF use Irish badly (in many cases) but at least they are trying. If all of us my self included used a little day by day that would go some way towards keeping it a living language. I (in spite of my pledges) watched a little bit of Nolan last night...depressing and shocked at Chris McGimpsey. Had to laugh though at the boy from Shankill saying there'd be no Irish place names were he lived.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this but I'm not suggesting that the GAA should stop promoting Irish language and culture. I've never met anyone who did suggest such a thing.

By the same token there's no reason they couldn't promote Ulster Scots too. The GAA currently promotes white Catholic Irish culture. There's much more to Irish culture than that alone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 08, 2018, 08:20:36 PM
Eh?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on March 08, 2018, 08:41:58 PM
Kevin Lynch in Derry will not be changing their name to suit anyone. would more protestants join GAA teams if this changed, Big No!! Clubs have their own problems attracting  players who rather play soccer, rugby, drink in the pub, work, changing the name of a club will have no effect on this, why are we worried about attracting protestants when we cant attract  many polish or foreign nationals to the game, who would attend catholic schools.

At the end of the day, Kevin Lynch club has won Derry senior hurling titles under that name and thats the reason i would keep it alone. Would it be named Kevin Lynch in todays society, NO! but it was named back when  the troubles were at their peak.

Sure we all join a Orange marching band once they make a 101 changes too!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on March 08, 2018, 08:41:58 PM
Kevin Lynch in Derry will not be changing their name to suit anyone. would more protestants join GAA teams if this changed, Big No!! Clubs have their own problems attracting  players who rather play soccer, rugby, drink in the pub, work, changing the name of a club will have no effect on this, why are we worried about attracting protestants when we cant attract  many polish or foreign nationals to the game, who would attend catholic schools.

At the end of the day, Kevin Lynch club has won Derry senior hurling titles under that name and thats the reason i would keep it alone. Would it be named Kevin Lynch in todays society, NO! but it was named back when  the troubles were at their peak.

Sure we all join a Orange marching band once they make a 101 changes too!!

The OO is an anti-catholic organisation. The GAA is not anti-Protestant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 08, 2018, 09:02:36 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:14:07 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 07:23:23 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2018, 03:38:00 PM
The difficulty the GAA has in the north is that it is still very much parish based and that makes it hard in a segregated society to attract kids in, we have two clubs in our parish and kids will only play for the team at their end. So its difficult to reach out to kids from outside. In relation to Irishness why should the GAA as an Irish cultural organisation as well as sporting one not promote Irish language and culture. To many nationalists it is also still the only place our identity and ethnicity is officially recognised in a state dominated by the culture and symbolism of one side. It grates on me sometimes to hear SF use Irish badly (in many cases) but at least they are trying. If all of us my self included used a little day by day that would go some way towards keeping it a living language. I (in spite of my pledges) watched a little bit of Nolan last night...depressing and shocked at Chris McGimpsey. Had to laugh though at the boy from Shankill saying there'd be no Irish place names were he lived.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this but I'm not suggesting that the GAA should stop promoting Irish language and culture. I've never met anyone who did suggest such a thing.

By the same token there's no reason they couldn't promote Ulster Scots too. The GAA currently promotes white Catholic Irish culture. There's much more to Irish culture than that alone.

There's no need to promote it, everyone that lives in an area where Ulster Scots may be spoken is already fluent in it. Even in Roscommon you'd be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't understand it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on March 08, 2018, 09:09:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:14:07 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 07:23:23 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2018, 03:38:00 PM
The difficulty the GAA has in the north is that it is still very much parish based and that makes it hard in a segregated society to attract kids in, we have two clubs in our parish and kids will only play for the team at their end. So its difficult to reach out to kids from outside. In relation to Irishness why should the GAA as an Irish cultural organisation as well as sporting one not promote Irish language and culture. To many nationalists it is also still the only place our identity and ethnicity is officially recognised in a state dominated by the culture and symbolism of one side. It grates on me sometimes to hear SF use Irish badly (in many cases) but at least they are trying. If all of us my self included used a little day by day that would go some way towards keeping it a living language. I (in spite of my pledges) watched a little bit of Nolan last night...depressing and shocked at Chris McGimpsey. Had to laugh though at the boy from Shankill saying there'd be no Irish place names were he lived.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this but I'm not suggesting that the GAA should stop promoting Irish language and culture. I've never met anyone who did suggest such a thing.

By the same token there's no reason they couldn't promote Ulster Scots too. The GAA currently promotes white Catholic Irish culture. There's much more to Irish culture than that alone.
What!!!
It promotes Irish culture, Catholicism whether it is liked or not is the predominant religion in Ireland .
Colour has feck all to do with it , have you send the number of black kids playing the game and long may it continue.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 09:16:04 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:14:07 PM
By the same token there's no reason they couldn't promote Ulster Scots too. The GAA currently promotes white Catholic Irish culture. There's much more to Irish culture than that alone.

Damned if I know why you're bringing skin colour into it but I wouldn't be opposed to exploring the hurling-shinty connection more. Twinning arrangements between hurling clubs in Antrim and Shinty clubs in Scotland, underage exchange visits, regular compromise rules games at club level and not just the international series (which has been running since 1896, by the way), would all do the power of good. The northern flavour of hurling (commons) is part of their heritage that most planters have probably forgotten, which is a shame.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 09:19:35 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on March 08, 2018, 08:41:58 PM
Sure we all join a Orange marching band once they make a 101 changes too!!

The OO could make plenty of changes to their organization. They could drop the anti-catholic rules and rhetoric and put a bit of daylight between themselves and political unionism. If they could reform into a more benevolent fraternal organization that promotes positive aspects of Protestantism then I don't think Catholics would be lining up to join but at least it'd take out the reasons to object to their parades in Catholic areas. I'd like to see the day when the OO is non-sectarian enough and apolitical enough that their parades would be welcome in nationalist areas.

It's a long way in to the future, but it's an achievable goal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 09:53:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 09:16:04 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:14:07 PM
By the same token there's no reason they couldn't promote Ulster Scots too. The GAA currently promotes white Catholic Irish culture. There's much more to Irish culture than that alone.

Damned if I know why you're bringing skin colour into it but I wouldn't be opposed to exploring the hurling-shinty connection more. Twinning arrangements between hurling clubs in Antrim and Shinty clubs in Scotland, underage exchange visits, regular compromise rules games at club level and not just the international series (which has been running since 1896, by the way), would all do the power of good. The northern flavour of hurling (commons) is part of their heritage that most planters have probably forgotten, which is a shame.

If you saw how little is being done locally here in Ballyhaunis (refugee center and the first mosque west of the Shannon), Ballagh (Syrians and a long-established Pakistani community) and Roscommon (some wonderful Brazilians) you'd know far the GAA still needs to come to appeal to anyone who isn't white and Catholic. And these are small rural towns that for simple competitive reasons shouldn't be giving up swathes of their potential supporter base if they want to thrive.

The GAA will get a couple of lads in their U12 teams from different backgrounds and they usually end up dropping out long before senior but it doesn't stop the back-patting inside the sport - Ballyhaunis was promoting itself as some bastion of inclusion last year but their senior hurling team doesn't have a single non-white player in their ranks despite running blitzes that's filled with minority players. The system is still broken.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 09:59:22 PM
So we have to choose between recruiting protestants, recruiting immigrants, or recruiting from the traditional demographic, but we can't do all three? We can't even do two of those three? Maybe if the association were a bit more outward looking and less cliquish we'd find it easier to bring people in from all backgrounds, Poles and planters alike.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 09:53:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 09:16:04 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:14:07 PM
By the same token there's no reason they couldn't promote Ulster Scots too. The GAA currently promotes white Catholic Irish culture. There's much more to Irish culture than that alone.

Damned if I know why you're bringing skin colour into it but I wouldn't be opposed to exploring the hurling-shinty connection more. Twinning arrangements between hurling clubs in Antrim and Shinty clubs in Scotland, underage exchange visits, regular compromise rules games at club level and not just the international series (which has been running since 1896, by the way), would all do the power of good. The northern flavour of hurling (commons) is part of their heritage that most planters have probably forgotten, which is a shame.

If you saw how little is being done local here in Ballyhaunis (refugee center and the first mosque west of the Shannon), Ballagh (Syrians and a long-established Pakistani community) and Roscommon (some wonderful Brazilians) you'd know far the GAA still needs to come to appeal to anyone who isn't white and Catholic. And these are small rural towns that for simple competitive reasons shouldn't be giving up swathes of their potential supporter base if they want to thrive.

The GAA will get a couple of lads in their U12 teams from different backgrounds and they usually end up dropping out long before senior but it doesn't stop the back-patting inside the sport - Ballyhaunis was promoting itself as some bastion of inclusion last year but their senior hurling team doesn't have a single non-white player in their ranks despite running blitzes that's filled with minority players. The system is still broken.

Fair enough. But what work should the GAA in Ballyhaunis do to promote hurling among their Muslim community? Or football for that matter. I highly doubt they all stand outside their clubhouse with sheets saying 'white Catholic only'. And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 09:59:22 PM
So we have to choose between recruiting protestants, recruiting immigrants, or recruiting from the traditional demographic, but we can't do all three? We can't even do two of those three? Maybe if the association were a bit more outward looking and less cliquish we'd find it easier to bring people in from all backgrounds, Poles and planters alike.

'The Poles and Planters Program' - maybe that's what they could call that initiative  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.

The anthem isn't an issue in the free state. Only in the north would I be in favour of dropping it at matches.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 08, 2018, 10:30:52 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.

The anthem isn't an issue in the free state. Only in the north would I be in favour of dropping it at matches.

That's a partitionist issue though. The gaa is a 32 county organisation. Rule 21 only affected the North but was voted on a 32 county basis.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 11:20:21 PM
The Good Friday Agreement, which we should all be supporting, recognises the sensitivity of flags and symbols in the north. We should all behave accordingly and stop using flags as territorial markers. In a normal country flags are used to unite people, in the north they're used to divide.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 09, 2018, 12:02:48 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 11:20:21 PM
The Good Friday Agreement, which we should all be supporting, recognises the sensitivity of flags and symbols in the north. We should all behave accordingly and stop using flags as territorial markers. In a normal country flags are used to unite people, in the north they're used to divide.

We don't use a flag to mark territory, every GAA ground in the world flys the flag.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 12:42:46 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 09, 2018, 12:02:48 AM

We don't use a flag to mark territory

In the Northern Ireland it's precisely what we do
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 09, 2018, 12:55:35 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 12:42:46 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 09, 2018, 12:02:48 AM

We don't use a flag to mark territory

In the Northern Ireland it's precisely what we do

The GAA flys  the flag in same way in all 32 counties. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on March 09, 2018, 01:38:00 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.

The anthem isn't an issue in the free state. Only in the north would I be in favour of dropping it at matches.

Be careful what you wish for!
Inclusion is of paramount importance , and we should continue to work at welcoming everybody particularly minorities. However that needn't be at the expense of our Irish ethos.
We punch way above our weight as a sport , dwarfing major worldwide sports on this island. A major motivation for most of our best volunteers and a subconscious motivation for all involved is the patriotic attachment of the organisation. If we drop all or many of the trappings of Irishness it may not attract minorities to any great extent, but it could undermine our volunteer base.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 02:22:27 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on March 09, 2018, 01:38:00 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.

The anthem isn't an issue in the free state. Only in the north would I be in favour of dropping it at matches.

Be careful what you wish for!
Inclusion is of paramount importance , and we should continue to work at welcoming everybody particularly minorities. However that needn't be at the expense of our Irish ethos.
We punch way above our weight as a sport , dwarfing major worldwide sports on this island. A major motivation for most of our best volunteers and a subconscious motivation for all involved is the patriotic attachment of the organisation. If we drop all or many of the trappings of Irishness it may not attract minorities to any great extent, but it could undermine our volunteer base.

Given its supremacy, the GAA punches at exactly its weight in the country. There are plenty of examples of local sports being massively popular in one or two countries, it really doesn't matter a jot how popular another is internationally if that native sport is already established.

The GAA is no underdog and that is no excuse not reflect the Ireland of 2018 rather than the one that exsisted when a bunch of revolutionaries had a knees up in Hayes' in the 1880s. The identity of Ireland has changed and the GAA needs to as well.

If you think there's much attachment to the patriotic element of the GAA outside the six counties you're sorely mistaken. It's just sport and local communities in the other 26. The club and county flags mean far more to me in the GAA than the tri colour. First it was being afraid of foreign sports, then it was of cops playing the sport, now the boogeyman is some imagined loss of white Catholic culture if we do the things that will allow us to reach out to other groups in the future. This is all very remeincent of the retoric used by Trump's supporters when talking about the changing face of America and the decline of WASPs' influence - not a favourable comparison for anyone.

And if someone is only in GAA so tennously that making it less politically charged and open in the north turns them away, good night and good riddance to those people. They don't reflect my ethos and attachment to the GAA in any way, shape or form.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on March 09, 2018, 03:48:28 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 02:22:27 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on March 09, 2018, 01:38:00 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.

The anthem isn't an issue in the free state. Only in the north would I be in favour of dropping it at matches.

Be careful what you wish for!
Inclusion is of paramount importance , and we should continue to work at welcoming everybody particularly minorities. However that needn't be at the expense of our Irish ethos.
We punch way above our weight as a sport , dwarfing major worldwide sports on this island. A major motivation for most of our best volunteers and a subconscious motivation for all involved is the patriotic attachment of the organisation. If we drop all or many of the trappings of Irishness it may not attract minorities to any great extent, but it could undermine our volunteer base.

Given its supremacy, the GAA punches at exactly its weight in the country. There are plenty of examples of local sports being massively popular in one or two countries, it really doesn't matter a jot how popular another is internationally if that native sport is already established.

The GAA is no underdog and that is no excuse not reflect the Ireland of 2018 rather than the one that exsisted when a bunch of revolutionaries had a knees up in Hayes' in the 1880s. The identity of Ireland has changed and the GAA needs to as well.

If you think there's much attachment to the patriotic element of the GAA outside the six counties you're sorely mistaken. It's just sport and local communities in the other 26. The club and county flags mean far more to me in the GAA than the tri colour. First it was being afraid of foreign sports, then it was of cops playing the sport, now the boogeyman is some imagined loss of white Catholic culture if we do the things that will allow us to reach out to other groups in the future. This is all very remeincent of the retoric used by Trump's supporters when talking about the changing face of America and the decline of WASPs' influence - not a favourable comparison for anyone.

And if someone is only in GAA so tennously that making it less politically charged and open in the north turns them away, good night and good riddance to those people. They don't reflect my ethos and attachment to the GAA in any way, shape or form.

But at the end of the day you are a west brit tr**p with an ethos not much better than Ruth Dudley Edwards. Your ethos  means fu k all to the majority of people I know. I'd love too meet you in the flesh.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on March 09, 2018, 07:06:07 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 02:22:27 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on March 09, 2018, 01:38:00 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.

The anthem isn't an issue in the free state. Only in the north would I be in favour of dropping it at matches.

Be careful what you wish for!
Inclusion is of paramount importance , and we should continue to work at welcoming everybody particularly minorities. However that needn't be at the expense of our Irish ethos.
We punch way above our weight as a sport , dwarfing major worldwide sports on this island. A major motivation for most of our best volunteers and a subconscious motivation for all involved is the patriotic attachment of the organisation. If we drop all or many of the trappings of Irishness it may not attract minorities to any great extent, but it could undermine our volunteer base.

Given its supremacy, the GAA punches at exactly its weight in the country. There are plenty of examples of local sports being massively popular in one or two countries, it really doesn't matter a jot how popular another is internationally if that native sport is already established.

The GAA is no underdog and that is no excuse not reflect the Ireland of 2018 rather than the one that exsisted when a bunch of revolutionaries had a knees up in Hayes' in the 1880s. The identity of Ireland has changed and the GAA needs to as well.

If you think there's much attachment to the patriotic element of the GAA outside the six counties you're sorely mistaken. It's just sport and local communities in the other 26. The club and county flags mean far more to me in the GAA than the tri colour. First it was being afraid of foreign sports, then it was of cops playing the sport, now the boogeyman is some imagined loss of white Catholic culture if we do the things that will allow us to reach out to other groups in the future. This is all very remeincent of the retoric used by Trump's supporters when talking about the changing face of America and the decline of WASPs' influence - not a favourable comparison for anyone.

And if someone is only in GAA so tennously that making it less politically charged and open in the north turns them away, good night and good riddance to those people. They don't reflect my ethos and attachment to the GAA in any way, shape or form.

You obviously weren't at any of the magnificent 1916 commemorations held not only in Croke Park but at most gaa clubs up and down the country. The part played by the younger generation in these commemorations was really impressive from reading the proclamation, singing the national anthem or playing parts in the military pageants. There is a very obvious link between G.A.A. members and nationalism
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 07:25:51 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 09, 2018, 03:48:28 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 02:22:27 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on March 09, 2018, 01:38:00 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.

The anthem isn't an issue in the free state. Only in the north would I be in favour of dropping it at matches.

Be careful what you wish for!
Inclusion is of paramount importance , and we should continue to work at welcoming everybody particularly minorities. However that needn't be at the expense of our Irish ethos.
We punch way above our weight as a sport , dwarfing major worldwide sports on this island. A major motivation for most of our best volunteers and a subconscious motivation for all involved is the patriotic attachment of the organisation. If we drop all or many of the trappings of Irishness it may not attract minorities to any great extent, but it could undermine our volunteer base.

Given its supremacy, the GAA punches at exactly its weight in the country. There are plenty of examples of local sports being massively popular in one or two countries, it really doesn't matter a jot how popular another is internationally if that native sport is already established.

The GAA is no underdog and that is no excuse not reflect the Ireland of 2018 rather than the one that exsisted when a bunch of revolutionaries had a knees up in Hayes' in the 1880s. The identity of Ireland has changed and the GAA needs to as well.

If you think there's much attachment to the patriotic element of the GAA outside the six counties you're sorely mistaken. It's just sport and local communities in the other 26. The club and county flags mean far more to me in the GAA than the tri colour. First it was being afraid of foreign sports, then it was of cops playing the sport, now the boogeyman is some imagined loss of white Catholic culture if we do the things that will allow us to reach out to other groups in the future. This is all very remeincent of the retoric used by Trump's supporters when talking about the changing face of America and the decline of WASPs' influence - not a favourable comparison for anyone.

And if someone is only in GAA so tennously that making it less politically charged and open in the north turns them away, good night and good riddance to those people. They don't reflect my ethos and attachment to the GAA in any way, shape or form.

But at the end of the day you are a west brit tr**p with an ethos not much better than Ruth Dudley Edwards. Your ethos  means fu k all to the majority of people I know. I'd love too meet you in the flesh.
If Leitrim took over Roscommon in a war and

banned the primrose and  blue
Made fun of people who said Riscommon
Removed the Dermot Earley statue and replaced it with one of Packie McGarty
Renamed Ros as South Leitrim
Forced everyone on Shannon side to use the term

Syf would see things differently



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 07:43:19 AM
So 13% of kids in underage kids are from different backgrounds and the club regularly runs blitzes that attract loads of nonwhitecatholic kids but on the other hand the Gaa's Trumpesque attitudes are ensuring that minorities are excluded. How can anyone write as much dung as you do and expect to be taken seriously. You are so full of shit u are goinna choke on it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:16:12 AM
Has Syfīn allowed Tony F to use his account?
He used to be a half baked wildly optimistic Ros fan (+ Mayowestros,  Galway hurlers, St Brigids. .....) but now he's gone into a WUM of the highest order.
His new hobby horse is blaming the GAA for promoting "White Irish Catholic culture" whatever that is.
As 98% of Irish people are white, 70% would class themselves Catholic, 90% are Irish born .....
I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 09, 2018, 09:18:29 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:16:12 AM
Has Syfīn allowed Tony F to use his account?
He used to be a half baked wildly optimistic Ros fan (+ Mayowestros,  Galway hurlers, St Brigids. .....) but now he's gone into a WUM of the highest order.
His new hobby horse is blaming the GAA for promoting "White Irish Catholic culture" whatever that is.
As 98% of Irish people are white, 70% would class themselves Catholic, 90% are Irish born .....
I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.

You forgot to mention he agrees that the two communities in the North have common culture.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 10:26:18 AM
Whingy whiny accents???
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

Fair play to you for setting out how you feel. I get the impression there are others who agree with you but are too embarrassed to admit to it.

By setting out that Catholic kids outside the GAA fold our "own" but Protestants living alongside them are not you are already setting out the organisation as a catholic one. An unhelpful starting position.

To dress up some minor changes you are being asked to make as "licking the holes of some loyalist knackers" probably means you are not going to be at the vanguard of moving this place forward

The GAA can't and won't be forced to make the necessary changes. But if it takes that intransigent stance then it will come at a price

We know that the UK civil service is looking at housing, schooling and public expenditure in NI to try to reduce the long term deficit. In that regard there is a realisation that funding segregated housing, segregated schooling and capital projects that maintain cultural separation is a bad use of public funds (as more funds have to be found to manage the ongoing impacts of the lack of social cohesion).

If you don't reach out to unionism you won't be able to reach out for the cheque. The choice is yours

Google "Cantrell Close"

Know it only too well.

It's the problem writ large

So what are going to do about it

Sit back and do nothing and your cowardice betrays the generation coming behind you.
Retaliation that displays the same bigotry is even more cowardly and betrays society to an even greater extent.

This society needs to move forward together. There will be knuckle staggers on both sides. Recognise them for what they are, call them out, by all means engage with them to try to shift them along the evolutionary spectrum but we can only stall so much and for so long
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:06:46 AM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

Fair play to you for setting out how you feel. I get the impression there are others who agree with you but are too embarrassed to admit to it.

By setting out that Catholic kids outside the GAA fold our "own" but Protestants living alongside them are not you are already setting out the organisation as a catholic one. An unhelpful starting position.

To dress up some minor changes you are being asked to make as "licking the holes of some loyalist knackers" probably means you are not going to be at the vanguard of moving this place forward

The GAA can't and won't be forced to make the necessary changes. But if it takes that intransigent stance then it will come at a price

We know that the UK civil service is looking at housing, schooling and public expenditure in NI to try to reduce the long term deficit. In that regard there is a realisation that funding segregated housing, segregated schooling and capital projects that maintain cultural separation is a bad use of public funds (as more funds have to be found to manage the ongoing impacts of the lack of social cohesion).

If you don't reach out to unionism you won't be able to reach out for the cheque. The choice is yours

I never mentioned religions at all, you added that in.

my point is simple we have thousands upon thousands of nationalist kids in urban areas who arent yet active in GAA, Derry city being the biggest misnomer of all . They would be easier brought into the GAA than someone who is ideologically and multi generationally opposed to everything of an irish culture.
Its not sectarian, its merely common sense why should the GAA attempt the impossible for the sake of what maybe 10 kids joining when 1000s are available if Croke Park and HQ together with the respective county boards got their fingers out of their holes and invested in reclaiming the decay in urban nationalist areas

Yes it was me who called them catholic. You called them nationalist. Why do call the nationalists? They are children. They've never voted. They don't play Irish games. What non religious criteria were you using?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: Franko on March 08, 2018, 05:16:51 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI

Did you know him?

My parents did. Aul fella wouldn't have a great word for him.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 02:22:27 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on March 09, 2018, 01:38:00 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 08, 2018, 10:03:02 PM
And don't mention the anthem, they only hear it in Ballyhaunis once a year when there's a championship match on.

The anthem isn't an issue in the free state. Only in the north would I be in favour of dropping it at matches.

Be careful what you wish for!
Inclusion is of paramount importance , and we should continue to work at welcoming everybody particularly minorities. However that needn't be at the expense of our Irish ethos.
We punch way above our weight as a sport , dwarfing major worldwide sports on this island. A major motivation for most of our best volunteers and a subconscious motivation for all involved is the patriotic attachment of the organisation. If we drop all or many of the trappings of Irishness it may not attract minorities to any great extent, but it could undermine our volunteer base.

Given its supremacy, the GAA punches at exactly its weight in the country. There are plenty of examples of local sports being massively popular in one or two countries, it really doesn't matter a jot how popular another is internationally if that native sport is already established.

The GAA is no underdog and that is no excuse not reflect the Ireland of 2018 rather than the one that exsisted when a bunch of revolutionaries had a knees up in Hayes' in the 1880s. The identity of Ireland has changed and the GAA needs to as well.

If you think there's much attachment to the patriotic element of the GAA outside the six counties you're sorely mistaken. It's just sport and local communities in the other 26. The club and county flags mean far more to me in the GAA than the tri colour. First it was being afraid of foreign sports, then it was of cops playing the sport, now the boogeyman is some imagined loss of white Catholic culture if we do the things that will allow us to reach out to other groups in the future. This is all very remeincent of the retoric used by Trump's supporters when talking about the changing face of America and the decline of WASPs' influence - not a favourable comparison for anyone.

And if someone is only in GAA so tennously that making it less politically charged and open in the north turns them away, good night and good riddance to those people. They don't reflect my ethos and attachment to the GAA in any way, shape or form.

you wanna explain this a bit more? Are you saying us in the north are attracted to the GAA because of some patriotic element? At 7 years of old I was very political and patriotic and that's why I decided to play GAA. Nothing to do with my friends at all
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:23:08 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 08, 2018, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI

I think Smel, you'll find that that is not the case. You will find he means a great deal to the majority of people and those others who put down their lives.

Really?

The relevance to young people who think The Troubles was a nite club in Belfast?
The relevance to young people who will vote SF but wouldn't touch them if there was a return to violence
Relevant to people who backed the provisionals but deeply mistrust the fringe republicans?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 09, 2018, 11:34:10 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:23:08 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 08, 2018, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI

I think Smel, you'll find that that is not the case. You will find he means a great deal to the majority of people and those others who put down their lives.

Really?

The relevance to young people who think The Troubles was a nite club in Belfast?
The relevance to young people who will vote SF but wouldn't touch them if there was a return to violence
Relevant to people who backed the provisionals but deeply mistrust the fringe republicans?

How many young people do you actually know? Everyone knows what The Troubles were. The general consensus among young nationalists is that the Troubles were an unfortunate but inevitable reaction to the political and social situation at the time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
A figure of speech.
One that I thought you might have been familiar with.

Increasingly I find that young people are disinterested in the details of the troubles
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 09, 2018, 11:41:11 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: Franko on March 08, 2018, 05:16:51 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI

Did you know him?

My parents did. Aul fella wouldn't have a great word for him.

Ah right. Your daddy told you.  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

Fair play to you for setting out how you feel. I get the impression there are others who agree with you but are too embarrassed to admit to it.

By setting out that Catholic kids outside the GAA fold our "own" but Protestants living alongside them are not you are already setting out the organisation as a catholic one. An unhelpful starting position.

To dress up some minor changes you are being asked to make as "licking the holes of some loyalist knackers" probably means you are not going to be at the vanguard of moving this place forward

The GAA can't and won't be forced to make the necessary changes. But if it takes that intransigent stance then it will come at a price

We know that the UK civil service is looking at housing, schooling and public expenditure in NI to try to reduce the long term deficit. In that regard there is a realisation that funding segregated housing, segregated schooling and capital projects that maintain cultural separation is a bad use of public funds (as more funds have to be found to manage the ongoing impacts of the lack of social cohesion).

If you don't reach out to unionism you won't be able to reach out for the cheque. The choice is yours

Google "Cantrell Close"

Know it only too well.

It's the problem writ large

So what are going to do about it

Sit back and do nothing and your cowardice betrays the generation coming behind you.
Retaliation that displays the same bigotry is even more cowardly and betrays society to an even greater extent.

This society needs to move forward together. There will be knuckle staggers on both sides. Recognise them for what they are, call them out, by all means engage with them to try to shift them along the evolutionary spectrum but we can only stall so much and for so long

I suppose in a normal society the police would do their job and remove the offending flags once a complaint is received, but the pass the buck when it comes to these types of flags. Harder still when the sitting MLA for the area sees no issue with them in what is meant to be a "shared" housing scheme.

Throw up a tricolour and they'll be round in double quick time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 12:11:40 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 09, 2018, 11:41:11 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: Franko on March 08, 2018, 05:16:51 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 07, 2018, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2018, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 07, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
Wonder how many clubs are actively supporting the Irish language or traditional music, song etc?
Time for the basic aim to be the promotion of the Gaelic games of football, hurling....etc.
Leave politics to the politicians,  Traditional music to Comhaltas, The language to Conradh and so on.

Agreed. No need for the GAA to act like it's the sporting equivilent of the Wolfe Tones (not a bad auld group, but not exactly agents of cross-community understanding). The one positive of the new age corporate GAA bean counters is that they will likely shy away from the jingoism over the next few decades and try to appeal to other ethnic groups in the country. Money tends to be a powerful motivation.

The club I'm from promotes all of the above. I would imagine they will continue to do so. If this puts people from a different background from joining our club then I'm sorry about that but this is what we are. Take it or leave it.

Fine. Don't make any effort to make Protestants feel welcome. Don't try to grow your club by recruiting from an under-represented demographic. Stick to your little clique and shun all outsiders, newcomers, and everyone who doesn't look like you. But don't come crying to me when unionists keep attacking Irish culture because they think it's alien or threatening to them.

So you think our club should stop the Irish language evening classes?  We should stop teaching kids how to play Irish music so they can enter Scor?

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? If I had my way there'd be a lot more protestants attending said Irish language evening classes, learning Irish music, and participating in Scór. But it's not going to happen in your club if it's named after an INLA man.

I'm sorry but I don't see why the club should have to change its name to suit a handful of Protestants? Kevin Lynch means more to the people of Dungiven and the rest of the North than what it would mean to have a few Protestants join the club. Leave the clubs as they are. If anyone new wants to join, then come ahead. If not, then stay away. You take away names, take away the anthem, take away the flag. Jesus men, have some pride in yourselves.

Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI

Did you know him?

My parents did. Aul fella wouldn't have a great word for him.

Ah right. Your daddy told you.  ::)

What's your problem?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 12:15:25 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
there are huge swathes of nationalist kids in both Derry and Belfast not in the gaa fold, surely the aim should be get all our own first before licking the holes of any loyalist knackers to play GAA

Fair play to you for setting out how you feel. I get the impression there are others who agree with you but are too embarrassed to admit to it.

By setting out that Catholic kids outside the GAA fold our "own" but Protestants living alongside them are not you are already setting out the organisation as a catholic one. An unhelpful starting position.

To dress up some minor changes you are being asked to make as "licking the holes of some loyalist knackers" probably means you are not going to be at the vanguard of moving this place forward

The GAA can't and won't be forced to make the necessary changes. But if it takes that intransigent stance then it will come at a price

We know that the UK civil service is looking at housing, schooling and public expenditure in NI to try to reduce the long term deficit. In that regard there is a realisation that funding segregated housing, segregated schooling and capital projects that maintain cultural separation is a bad use of public funds (as more funds have to be found to manage the ongoing impacts of the lack of social cohesion).

If you don't reach out to unionism you won't be able to reach out for the cheque. The choice is yours

Google "Cantrell Close"

Know it only too well.

It's the problem writ large

So what are going to do about it

Sit back and do nothing and your cowardice betrays the generation coming behind you.
Retaliation that displays the same bigotry is even more cowardly and betrays society to an even greater extent.

This society needs to move forward together. There will be knuckle staggers on both sides. Recognise them for what they are, call them out, by all means engage with them to try to shift them along the evolutionary spectrum but we can only stall so much and for so long

I suppose in a normal society the police would do their job and remove the offending flags once a complaint is received, but the pass the buck when it comes to these types of flags. Harder still when the sitting MLA for the area sees no issue with them in what is meant to be a "shared" housing scheme.

Throw up a tricolour and they'll be round in double quick time.

We don't live in a normal society. So no, the police do not always do their job. They pass the buck. It's partially explained by resourcing but not fully

You seem to think this is because of the flag in question. Where is this example of the tricolour being forceably taken down in double quick time?


P.S. completely agree on Pengelly
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on March 09, 2018, 12:54:53 PM
On the one hand I hear:

- Population change and religious headcount swaying towards a catholic/nationalist majority
- Unionism will self implode as too many chiefs fight each other
- England wants to jettison this expensive and troublesome colony for which they get no benefit
- United Ireland is only a matter of years away
- an easy solution to Brexit is that England drops its claim to the occupied six counties

On the other hand:
- A United Ireland is as far away as ever
- SF do more damage to re-unification than bring it closer
- Ireland does not want burdened with the occupied six
- A lot of six county catholics prefer to suckle off mother England's nipple

So which is it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 01:33:06 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2018, 12:54:53 PM
On the one hand I hear:

- Population change and religious headcount swaying towards a catholic/nationalist majority
- Unionism will self implode as too many chiefs fight each other
- England wants to jettison this expensive and troublesome colony for which they get no benefit
- United Ireland is only a matter of years away
- an easy solution to Brexit is that England drops its claim to the occupied six counties

On the other hand:
- A United Ireland is as far away as ever
- SF do more damage to re-unification than bring it closer
- Ireland does not want burdened with the occupied six
- A lot of six county catholics prefer to suckle off mother England's nipple

So which is it?

Demographics bit is probably true. It doesn't fully explain what would happen in a border poll though
The DUP certainly could implode. Can't see them maintaining discipline among the factions
GB won't jettison NI. They will let it go if it votes to leave. In the interim it is looking at the cost. It's not just a matter of cutting the spending (although the general austerity impacts are felt here as much as anywhere) but positively trying to do things that manage down the running costs
England dropping its claim to resolve Brexit issues. Where did you hear that?
There is no serious debate in ROI about the cost of a United Ireland. SF ask you to consider aUI in a hazy dreamlike stupor
People north and south would have serious economic implications to consider if there ever was a serious UI debate
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 09, 2018, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
A figure of speech.
One that I thought you might have been familiar with.

Increasingly I find that young people are disinterested in the details of the troubles

I think that was true until the flag protests and the recent crocodile stuff. I was still in school around the time of the flag protests and I saw attitudes to politics change almost overnight among my peers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you consider that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 09, 2018, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
A figure of speech.
One that I thought you might have been familiar with.

Increasingly I find that young people are disinterested in the details of the troubles

I think that was true until the flag protests and the recent crocodile stuff. I was still in school around the time of the flag protests and I saw attitudes to politics change almost overnight among my peers.

Completely disagree re the crocodile stuff. Crass stupidity on Arlene 's part but dismissed as such by most people. Didn't hear anyone reference the troubles in that context

The flags I can kind of see where you are coming from. That issue did politicise and along traditional lines but I would disagree that brought debate of the troubles to the fore
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 02:10:31 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 09, 2018, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
A figure of speech.
One that I thought you might have been familiar with.

Increasingly I find that young people are disinterested in the details of the troubles

I think that was true until the flag protests and the recent crocodile stuff. I was still in school around the time of the flag protests and I saw attitudes to politics change almost overnight among my peers.

Completely disagree re the crocodile stuff. Crass stupidity on Arlene 's part but dismissed as such by most people. Didn't hear anyone reference the troubles in that context

The flags I can kind of see where you are coming from. That issue did politicise and along traditional lines but I would disagree that brought debate of the troubles to the fore

It certainly brought the "them and us" home to a lot of young nationalists who hitherto weren't overly interested or understanding of the fault lines in NI, the millennials so to speak were awakened and the Shinners gained.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:24:20 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 02:10:31 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 09, 2018, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
A figure of speech.
One that I thought you might have been familiar with.

Increasingly I find that young people are disinterested in the details of the troubles

I think that was true until the flag protests and the recent crocodile stuff. I was still in school around the time of the flag protests and I saw attitudes to politics change almost overnight among my peers.

Completely disagree re the crocodile stuff. Crass stupidity on Arlene 's part but dismissed as such by most people. Didn't hear anyone reference the troubles in that context

The flags I can kind of see where you are coming from. That issue did politicise and along traditional lines but I would disagree that brought debate of the troubles to the fore

It certainly brought the "them and us" home to a lot of young nationalists who hitherto weren't overly interested or understanding of the fault lines in NI, the millennials so to speak were awakened and the Shinners gained.

That bit I do agree with
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 09, 2018, 02:32:40 PM
The problem that we find now is that there is no way forward because both sides have declared on a subject on which neither can retreat any further.

On one hand SF has made major concessions from its January 2017 stance:

1. A very diluted ILA compared to its previous ministerial position and to the minimum required by the various Irish language organisations that thought they were leading the way.

2. Depend on DUP not using the PoC to allow SSM when the Assembly returns.

3. No mention of excluding Foster until she is 'cleared' by the inquiry, in fact no mention of RHI at all

In return, DUP has failed to deliver:

1. Not even any hint that legislation on the Irish language would be accepted where it might be construed in any fudge as an ILA for SF

2. No reformation of the PoC and while it cannot use it alone to block SSM it can count on TUV and a few UUP to use this legislation as it needs it.

DUP is trying to shift its stance to using UK parliament and show it doesn't need the Assembly in the hope that as a GE approaches in RoI, SF will want to be in government to show it is a capable coalition partner in the south.

UK government continues to support DUP as it has major problems with its own rebel remainer MPs.  Sets a budget for 2018-19 and lets NICS run the show for another 12 months.  The sky didn't fall in over the last 400+ days and the public didn't make much of a fuss other than to prefer that MLAs had their pay cut.

The problem causing this stasis is the lack of a competitive electoral system brought in by DUP and SF at the St Andrews Agreement whereby the FM would belong to the largest party and not the largest community representation or even voted for by the whole Assembly. 

SF agreed to this as a way of demanding all nationalist votes to try to take the position and nearly made it at the last election.  DUP wanted this to destroy the UUP by ensuring maximum vote could be pulled out for DUP to prevent a SF FM.

This crazy situation needs to be removed to allow competitive elections rather than creating parallel one party systems that we now have and have allowed the current impasse to occur.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 09, 2018, 02:41:25 PM
Reading this thread is like listening to the Nolan show.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: east down gael on March 09, 2018, 02:43:19 PM
I would say up until the flag protests that the question of the future of 'northern ireland' had been largely settled. The young people/millennials had no interest in the petty squabbling which passes for politics here. Stormont,while not ideal, seemed to be working.
   In the background I'm convinced the DUP were acutely award of the changing demographics which included the catholic population becoming the majority. In order to prevent this becoming a nationalist/republican majority,they had to make Northern Ireland a working entity,where Catholics didn't mind living and felt appreciated. Peter Robinson seemed to be doing this,with gestures of going to pairc esler, and his friendship with MMG.and it was working.all sorts of polls were showing that people were identifying themselves as northern Irish,and large percentages of Catholics would vote to maintain status quo etc. I honestly believe if this course had been continued,the constitutional question would have faded.
For some reason tho the DUP did an about turn. The flag protests were a disaster.all of a sudden a generation of Catholics that had no memory of the troubles,or drumcree even,were made to think maybe Northern Ireland can't work.things have got rapidly worse since then.
Without mapping out everything that has led to where we are now,I believe the DUP have been incapable of allowing Northern Ireland to become a place where irishness is viewed as equal to Britishness.every attempt to do this has been dressed up as a concession,when it's only what the DUP should have been doing to secure the union.when you add in their position on brexit,I honestly can't think of anything more they could have done to bring about an end to the union they profess to maintain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 09, 2018, 03:06:29 PM
So in a nutshell, it pays for DUP and SF to Stoke the fires in order to add support for their separate causes, ie. the North in the uk, a United ireland. And the more one side can poke the other, it benefits both parties.

It's obvious long term plans don't exist, other than politicans looking after their pay packets.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dire Ear on March 09, 2018, 03:07:21 PM
on the button East Down
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:27:03 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 09, 2018, 02:32:40 PM
The problem that we find now is that there is no way forward because both sides have declared on a subject on which neither can retreat any further.

On one hand SF has made major concessions from its January 2017 stance:

1. A very diluted ILA compared to its previous ministerial position and to the minimum required by the various Irish language organisations that thought they were leading the way.

2. Depend on DUP not using the PoC to allow SSM when the Assembly returns.

3. No mention of excluding Foster until she is 'cleared' by the inquiry, in fact no mention of RHI at all

In return, DUP has failed to deliver:

1. Not even any hint that legislation on the Irish language would be accepted where it might be construed in any fudge as an ILA for SF

2. No reformation of the PoC and while it cannot use it alone to block SSM it can count on TUV and a few UUP to use this legislation as it needs it.

DUP is trying to shift its stance to using UK parliament and show it doesn't need the Assembly in the hope that as a GE approaches in RoI, SF will want to be in government to show it is a capable coalition partner in the south.

UK government continues to support DUP as it has major problems with its own rebel remainer MPs.  Sets a budget for 2018-19 and lets NICS run the show for another 12 months.  The sky didn't fall in over the last 400+ days and the public didn't make much of a fuss other than to prefer that MLAs had their pay cut.

The problem causing this stasis is the lack of a competitive electoral system brought in by DUP and SF at the St Andrews Agreement whereby the FM would belong to the largest party and not the largest community representation or even voted for by the whole Assembly. 

SF agreed to this as a way of demanding all nationalist votes to try to take the position and nearly made it at the last election.  DUP wanted this to destroy the UUP by ensuring maximum vote could be pulled out for DUP to prevent a SF FM.

This crazy situation needs to be removed to allow competitive elections rather than creating parallel one party systems that we now have and have allowed the current impasse to occur.

2 parties running from tough decisions. The best way to deflect is to declare an enemy and focus on them

Was reading earlier today of the national pride of everyday Russians being swelled by reports of events in Salisbury. They think they are at war. Their government wants them to think that. Meanwhile their economy spirals downwards. Easy manipulated those Russians. You wouldn't get that here
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:27:55 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 09, 2018, 03:06:29 PM
So in a nutshell, it pays for DUP and SF to Stoke the fires in order to add support for their separate causes, ie. the North in the uk, a United ireland. And the more one side can poke the other, it benefits both parties.

It's obvious long term plans don't exist, other than politicans looking after their pay packets.

As you say, in a nutshell

DUP a bit more vulnerable. Not much sign of nationalism realigning itself. Unionism very easily could. There is a core group that won't let DUP move forward. Eventually the party has to split. We need this to happen. There is a bigger, but less vocal section of the unionist voter and non voter community who just want to back a winning unionist ticket. We need a sensible one to emerge. That is the way out of this
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 03:45:45 PM
Well it was ur words as u said he certainly was a criminal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orchard park on March 09, 2018, 03:51:37 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 03:45:45 PM
Well it was ur words as u said he certainly was a criminal.
[/quote



]Lynch was a renegade, a bully and a thug. He means very little to the majority of the people in NI

Did you know him?

My parents did. Aul fella wouldn't have a great word for him.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:16:12 AM
Has Syfīn allowed Tony F to use his account?
He used to be a half baked wildly optimistic Ros fan (+ Mayowestros,  Galway hurlers, St Brigids. .....) but now he's gone into a WUM of the highest order.
His new hobby horse is blaming the GAA for promoting "White Irish Catholic culture" whatever that is.
As 98% of Irish people are white, 70% would class themselves Catholic, 90% are Irish born .....
I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.

You and a couple others have got hot under the collar over something as mundane as pointing out the culture the GAA promotes is only reflective of white, Catholic Ireland. There are plenty of other aspects to contemporary Irish culture in case you've somehow missed them all.

Ignoring that fact until we get to a point like in France where minorities feel totally disenfranchised hardly seems like a solution worth considering. Sport is the best vehicle to my mind for promoting inclusion and community irrespective of colour or creed, and an unwillingness for the biggest sporting organisation in the country to let go of old symbols so they can move towards a point in time when all people feel comfortable being part of a GAA club or the wider Gaelic community is also backwards.

Minorities on this island, be they unionists, protestants, Africans, Arabs, Indians, travellers, LGBTQ, all should be part of the GAA and feel equally accepted and a part of the decision-making process. Just because one lad in Ballagh or a few COI lads in Ulster have the balls to stick their heads above the parapet it doesn't mean we have this issue solved. It's a long, hard road but one that should be taken.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:10 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 03:45:45 PM
Well it was ur words as u said he certainly was a criminal.

Yes. Someone else threw the word out there. And I agreed with it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 04:13:25 PM
As I said earlier ...a quisling.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 04:13:25 PM
As I said earlier ...a quisling.

Deep insight.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on March 09, 2018, 06:50:14 PM
Criminals to some
Freedom fighters to others
By your definition Mandela was a criminal, as were the founding fathers in the USA
Without even mentioning 1916.


Genuinely this board used to be insightful and I have been here a long time.
It's becoming disappointing how it has been hijacked by WUM.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Roll the clock forward - demographic change-> nationalist majority -> majority position abused -> then accepted into a united ireland -> young protestant sees himself as a discriminated against minority -> he joins a paramilitary group-> they plant a bomb in Newry as it's a catholic town -> 10 die including 2 toddlers and a pregnant woman -> not deterred he and his confreres shoot a catholic taxi driver and put a bomb under a gardai car.


I'm not saying any individual step in that chain is going to happen. My point is that should that scenario ever arise I will condemn the criminal and will not consider myself a quisling
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on March 09, 2018, 06:54:27 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?
They didn't vote!
As most didn't engage in a gerrymandered state
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:58:03 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 04:13:25 PM
As I said earlier ...a quisling.

It's insight like that, that will resolve the current impasse and win the day in a border poll debate
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 06:50:14 PM
Criminals to some
Freedom fighters to others
By your definition Mandela was a criminal, as were the founding fathers in the USA
Without even mentioning 1916.


Genuinely this board used to be insightful and I have been here a long time.
It's becoming disappointing how it has been hijacked by WUM.

What makes you think that I consider Mandela a terrorist? Post your evidence
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 07:08:13 PM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 06:54:27 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?
They didn't vote!
As most didn't engage in a gerrymandered state

But the percentage of nationalists who voted in say 1979, 1983 or 1987 is the same as it is today. The only difference is which nationalist party they voted for. The difference is the violence. When SF back violence they don't win a majority of the nationalist vote. The majority of nationalists don't back the campaign of violence. Not then. Not now
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 07:19:17 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 07:08:13 PM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 06:54:27 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?
They didn't vote!
As most didn't engage in a gerrymandered state

But the percentage of nationalists who voted in say 1979, 1983 or 1987 is the same as it is today. The only difference is which nationalist party they voted for. The difference is the violence. When SF back violence they don't win a majority of the nationalist vote. The majority of nationalists don't back the campaign of violence. Not then. Not now

SF don't back violence NOW, but they haven't turned their back on what went on before, so is it not safe to assume that those who vote for them now are content with SF's role in the past?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 07:19:17 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 07:08:13 PM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 06:54:27 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?
They didn't vote!
As most didn't engage in a gerrymandered state

But the percentage of nationalists who voted in say 1979, 1983 or 1987 is the same as it is today. The only difference is which nationalist party they voted for. The difference is the violence. When SF back violence they don't win a majority of the nationalist vote. The majority of nationalists don't back the campaign of violence. Not then. Not now

SF don't back violence NOW, but they haven't turned their back on what went on before, so is it not safe to assume that those who vote for them now are content with SF's role in the past?

Well look at how they voted at the time
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on March 09, 2018, 07:46:14 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 06:50:14 PM
Criminals to some
Freedom fighters to others
By your definition Mandela was a criminal, as were the founding fathers in the USA
Without even mentioning 1916.


Genuinely this board used to be insightful and I have been here a long time.
It's becoming disappointing how it has been hijacked by WUM.


What makes you think that I consider Mandela a terrorist? Post your evidence
Mandela,
By definition

A member of a terrorist organisation at the time( as seen by western governments)
Engaged in the attempt to over throw the state and government of the time
A member of an organisation that bombed and engaged in shootings to achieve their aim
As I said very similar to pira/ inla
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 08:23:18 PM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 07:46:14 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 06:50:14 PM
Criminals to some
Freedom fighters to others
By your definition Mandela was a criminal, as were the founding fathers in the USA
Without even mentioning 1916.


Genuinely this board used to be insightful and I have been here a long time.
It's becoming disappointing how it has been hijacked by WUM.


What makes you think that I consider Mandela a terrorist? Post your evidence
Mandela,
By definition

A member of a terrorist organisation at the time( as seen by western governments)
Engaged in the attempt to over throw the state and government of the time
A member of an organisation that bombed and engaged in shootings to achieve their aim
As I said very similar to pira/ inla

I can't claim to have a full knowledge of all that the ANC did in the 50s and very early 60s. No doubt some of the actions crossed the line. Point them out and I will respond. In a more general sense apartheid SA did not enfranchise Mandela's people who represented a massive majority. This is not true of NI in the 60s, 70s and beyond. There was no free press in SA and severe restrictions on foreign journalists entry into the country. This was not the case in NI. The options in SA were manifestly more narrow in SA

As range of options expanded, Mandela lead the move away from violence. He lead truth and reconciliation. He encouraged the guilty on all sides to fess up. He built peace
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:38:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:16:12 AM
I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.

What is it with the obsession with straw men on this thread?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:16:12 AM
Has Syfīn allowed Tony F to use his account?
He used to be a half baked wildly optimistic Ros fan (+ Mayowestros,  Galway hurlers, St Brigids. .....) but now he's gone into a WUM of the highest order.
His new hobby horse is blaming the GAA for promoting "White Irish Catholic culture" whatever that is.
As 98% of Irish people are white, 70% would class themselves Catholic, 90% are Irish born .....
I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.

You and a couple others have got hot under the collar over something as mundane as pointing out the culture the GAA promotes is only reflective of white, Catholic Ireland. There are plenty of other aspects to contemporary Irish culture in case you've somehow missed them all.

Ignoring that fact until we get to a point like in France where minorities feel totally disenfranchised hardly seems like a solution worth considering. Sport is the best vehicle to my mind for promoting inclusion and community irrespective of colour or creed, and an unwillingness for the biggest sporting organisation in the country to let go of old symbols so they can move towards a point in time when all people feel comfortable being part of a GAA club or the wider Gaelic community is also backwards.

Minorities on this island, be they unionists, protestants, Africans, Arabs, Indians, travellers, LGBTQ, all should be part of the GAA and feel equally accepted and a part of the decision-making process. Just because one lad in Ballagh or a few COI lads in Ulster have the balls to stick their heads above the parapet it doesn't mean we have this issue solved. It's a long, hard road but one that should be taken.

Hear hear.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:46:03 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?

SDLP. It wasn't until after the IRA ceasefire that SF took over the majority of nationalist votes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on March 09, 2018, 08:46:59 PM
Arguments that Adams and mc Guinness did the same.
Smelmouth
We can differ on opinion, I lived through all  the troubles as was born in the 60s I am an avid reader of history across the world, like Sykes /picot agreement , NI was a mess from the start
We can argue all night .
ANC atrocities 1983 airforce bombing in Pretoria 19 killed, 219 injured, 1980 sasbourg oil refinery attack , in the truth and reconciliation report they accepted responsibility for 500 bombings over 11 years as well as 95 associated bomb attacks not in their name, the acceptance that they planted land mines that killed farm workers.
Their report makes for grim reading
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 07:19:17 PM
SF don't back violence NOW, but they haven't turned their back on what went on before, so is it not safe to assume that those who vote for them now are content with SF's role in the past?

Only if you consider today's FG voters to be okay with blue-shirted fascists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 07:19:17 PM
SF don't back violence NOW, but they haven't turned their back on what went on before, so is it not safe to assume that those who vote for them now are content with SF's role in the past?

Only if you consider today's FG voters to be okay with blue-shirted fascists.

The president and leader of FG in 2018 wasn't the head of a terrorist paramilitary organisation. SF's leader at the start of this year on the other hand.. you mentioned straw man arguments rightly earlier but what you've done there is one of the favourite straw men in this thread, drawing a false sense of equivalence between modern FF/FG and SF.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:25:45 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:16:12 AM
Has Syfīn allowed Tony F to use his account?
He used to be a half baked wildly optimistic Ros fan (+ Mayowestros,  Galway hurlers, St Brigids. .....) but now he's gone into a WUM of the highest order.
His new hobby horse is blaming the GAA for promoting "White Irish Catholic culture" whatever that is.
As 98% of Irish people are white, 70% would class themselves Catholic, 90% are Irish born .....
I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.

You and a couple others have got hot under the collar over something as mundane as pointing out the culture the GAA promotes is only reflective of white, Catholic Ireland. There are plenty of other aspects to contemporary Irish culture in case you've somehow missed them all.

Ignoring that fact until we get to a point like in France where minorities feel totally disenfranchised hardly seems like a solution worth considering. Sport is the best vehicle to my mind for promoting inclusion and community irrespective of colour or creed, and an unwillingness for the biggest sporting organisation in the country to let go of old symbols so they can move towards a point in time when all people feel comfortable being part of a GAA club or the wider Gaelic community is also backwards.

Minorities on this island, be they unionists, protestants, Africans, Arabs, Indians, travellers, LGBTQ, all should be part of the GAA and feel equally accepted and a part of the decision-making process. Just because one lad in Ballagh or a few COI lads in Ulster have the balls to stick their heads above the parapet it doesn't mean we have this issue solved. It's a long, hard road but one that should be taken.

Hear hear.

Good Jasus will ya stop encouraging th'eejit with his nonsense.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 09:36:15 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 07:19:17 PM
SF don't back violence NOW, but they haven't turned their back on what went on before, so is it not safe to assume that those who vote for them now are content with SF's role in the past?

Only if you consider today's FG voters to be okay with blue-shirted fascists.

The president and leader of FG in 2018 wasn't the head of a terrorist paramilitary organisation. SF's leader at the start of this year on the other hand.. you mentioned straw man arguments rightly earlier but what you've done there is one of the favourite straw men in this thread, drawing a false sense of equivalence between modern FF/FG and SF.
FG are neoliberals and neoliberalism is a murderous ideology. I wonder how many suicides there were after the crash. There was no need for any regulation.
The terrorists are the ones who don't sell bonds.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 09:55:31 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 07:19:17 PM
SF don't back violence NOW, but they haven't turned their back on what went on before, so is it not safe to assume that those who vote for them now are content with SF's role in the past?

Only if you consider today's FG voters to be okay with blue-shirted fascists.

The president and leader of FG in 2018 wasn't the head of a terrorist paramilitary organisation. SF's leader at the start of this year on the other hand.. you mentioned straw man arguments rightly earlier but what you've done there is one of the favourite straw men in this thread, drawing a false sense of equivalence between modern FF/FG and SF.

Who do you think SF's leader is now?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 08:46:59 PM
Arguments that Adams and mc Guinness did the same.
Smelmouth
We can differ on opinion, I lived through all  the troubles as was born in the 60s I am an avid reader of history across the world, like Sykes /picot agreement , NI was a mess from the start
We can argue all night .
ANC atrocities 1983 airforce bombing in Pretoria 19 killed, 219 injured, 1980 sasbourg oil refinery attack , in the truth and reconciliation report they accepted responsibility for 500 bombings over 11 years as well as 95 associated bomb attacks not in their name, the acceptance that they planted land mines that killed farm workers.
Their report makes for grim reading

This was mostly under the guise of the ANC's military wing, the spear of the nation which Nelson was a founding member of.
No wonder Maggie called him a terrorist  :o
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ned on March 09, 2018, 10:08:57 PM
A Catholic's situation in the north was not as dire as the black South Africans, however, we were essentially viewed as second class and not worthy of equal rights hence the civil rights movement which was supported by more than just the nationalist people.

"When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw." Nelson Mandela

Having come through the trauma of the troubles whether on one side or the other, every person, whatever their involvement, had the right to have their say.

"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison." Nelson Mandela

Just because a party's "terrorist" history is longer in the past doesn't mean they have a greater moral compass.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 09, 2018, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:46:03 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?

SDLP. It wasn't until after the IRA ceasefire that SF took over the majority of nationalist votes.

Helped by the carve up with DUP and SF agreeing at St Andrews that the FM would no longer be from the majority representatives from one community and that FM and DFM would be appointed by the majority party on each side with no vote necessary for Assembly approval. Suits the DUP in destroying UUP and wiping SF eye by ensuring that ILA was never included in the legislation by the Blair government.

This mechanism has polarised the voting as both sides demand that voters should vote for them to keep the other side out/in of FM.

Results now in the FM appointment becoming the most important aspect of the election for the assembly.  So, instead of four relatively equal parties the dominant parties can never be removed from government.  Imagine if an election could be held and unionist voters could vote out DUP without worrying that a non-unionist would take over as FM. Instead we have mirror opposites without any hope of compromise.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 10:54:27 PM
I've never read the same amount of dung as I do on this thread. Its unbelievable. Pure hypocrisy at every turn. Mandela ok-Mcguinness bad.  SF- bad FG/FF-goodie. Catholics in the North had it bad,but not as bad as Mandela and his supporters had it. Pure dung.

Like it or lump it, Catholic's born in the North from 1980/1990 onwards have an equal if not better chance at a successful/prosperous life than their Protestant colleagues at the minute, especially West of the Bann. This all comes off the back of the IRA's campaign. Thats a fact. It wasn't through some kind of magic. Violence was the only option and it worked. University figures back this up with the split in numbers. Back this his up with the history lessons that most young people have learned from their parents/grandparents, use Kevin Lynch as an example, how many young adults grew up listening to Kevin Lynch as the hunger striker who died for rights (that were granted after 10 men died), not as a so called criminal. Less biased news coverage, coupled with better education, let young people make up their own minds and SF are now reaping the benefits.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:02:12 PM
Violence is rarely the only option. To say so is such a convienent lie I can't let it pass.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:04:42 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:25:45 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 09, 2018, 09:16:12 AM
Has Syfīn allowed Tony F to use his account?
He used to be a half baked wildly optimistic Ros fan (+ Mayowestros,  Galway hurlers, St Brigids. .....) but now he's gone into a WUM of the highest order.
His new hobby horse is blaming the GAA for promoting "White Irish Catholic culture" whatever that is.
As 98% of Irish people are white, 70% would class themselves Catholic, 90% are Irish born .....
I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.

You and a couple others have got hot under the collar over something as mundane as pointing out the culture the GAA promotes is only reflective of white, Catholic Ireland. There are plenty of other aspects to contemporary Irish culture in case you've somehow missed them all.

Ignoring that fact until we get to a point like in France where minorities feel totally disenfranchised hardly seems like a solution worth considering. Sport is the best vehicle to my mind for promoting inclusion and community irrespective of colour or creed, and an unwillingness for the biggest sporting organisation in the country to let go of old symbols so they can move towards a point in time when all people feel comfortable being part of a GAA club or the wider Gaelic community is also backwards.

Minorities on this island, be they unionists, protestants, Africans, Arabs, Indians, travellers, LGBTQ, all should be part of the GAA and feel equally accepted and a part of the decision-making process. Just because one lad in Ballagh or a few COI lads in Ulster have the balls to stick their heads above the parapet it doesn't mean we have this issue solved. It's a long, hard road but one that should be taken.

Hear hear.

Good Jasus will ya stop encouraging th'eejit with his nonsense.

Only you could be pig-headed enough to respond to that with such a silly and childish response.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:02:12 PM
Violence is rarely the only option. To say so is such a convienent lie I can't let it pass.

It was the only option in 1916...and it was the only option after 1969/and or Bloody Sunday, depending on when you want to start.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ned on March 10, 2018, 12:19:14 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:02:12 PM
Violence is rarely the only option. To say so is such a convienent lie I can't let it pass.

It was the only option in 1916...and it was the only option after 1969/and or Bloody Sunday, depending on when you want to start.

It wasn't the only option. The alternative was to continue as was. If Irish freedom fighters had taken this attitude Roscommon, Cork and the rest may still be under the British thumb but I'm alright Jack.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 10, 2018, 12:22:13 AM
Wasn't much choice after Bloody Sunday.
Campaign should have been called off after the Anglo Irish agreement in 1985.
However the thread's title is about the future so let's look forward and see where we go rather than dissecting the past....
(As long as the GAA stops using white Irish Catholic players of course😆)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 10, 2018, 01:06:03 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:02:12 PM
Violence is rarely the only option. To say so is such a convienent lie I can't let it pass.

It was the only option in 1916...and it was the only option after 1969/and or Bloody Sunday, depending on when you want to start.

In 1916! The public and a lot of the IRB themselves were against the Rising.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:23:36 AM
Quote from: naka on March 09, 2018, 08:46:59 PM
Arguments that Adams and mc Guinness did the same.
Smelmouth
We can differ on opinion, I lived through all  the troubles as was born in the 60s I am an avid reader of history across the world, like Sykes /picot agreement , NI was a mess from the start
We can argue all night .
ANC atrocities 1983 airforce bombing in Pretoria 19 killed, 219 injured, 1980 sasbourg oil refinery attack , in the truth and reconciliation report they accepted responsibility for 500 bombings over 11 years as well as 95 associated bomb attacks not in their name, the acceptance that they planted land mines that killed farm workers.
Their report makes for grim reading

Always willing to read new material so post up your evidence that Adams and McGuinness' campaign of violence had a massive majority.
Post the evidence that they gaining access to elections. Post the evidence that Catholics/ nationalists were barred from public office. Post your evidence that they were denied access to a free print press. Post your evidence that they could not have used peaceful protest and access to foreign media (and I'm not denying the atrocity of Bloody Sunday). This will be the evidence that they had no option but the violent one.

How exactly are you linking Mandela to culpability for events in the 1980s
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:27:32 AM
Quote from: ned on March 09, 2018, 10:08:57 PM
A Catholic's situation in the north was not as dire as the black South Africans, however, we were essentially viewed as second class and not worthy of equal rights hence the civil rights movement which was supported by more than just the nationalist people.

"When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw." Nelson Mandela

Having come through the trauma of the troubles whether on one side or the other, every person, whatever their involvement, had the right to have their say.

"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison." Nelson Mandela

Just because a party's "terrorist" history is longer in the past doesn't mean they have a greater moral compass.

Don't make the assumption that the leap between "there certainly was discrimination " and "therefore any reaction including indiscriminate murder is legitimate" is a small or obvious one
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:31:28 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 09, 2018, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 09, 2018, 08:46:03 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?

SDLP. It wasn't until after the IRA ceasefire that SF took over the majority of nationalist votes.

Helped by the carve up with DUP and SF agreeing at St Andrews that the FM would no longer be from the majority representatives from one community and that FM and DFM would be appointed by the majority party on each side with no vote necessary for Assembly approval. Suits the DUP in destroying UUP and wiping SF eye by ensuring that ILA was never included in the legislation by the Blair government.

This mechanism has polarised the voting as both sides demand that voters should vote for them to keep the other side out/in of FM.

Results now in the FM appointment becoming the most important aspect of the election for the assembly.  So, instead of four relatively equal parties the dominant parties can never be removed from government.  Imagine if an election could be held and unionist voters could vote out DUP without worrying that a non-unionist would take over as FM. Instead we have mirror opposites without any hope of compromise.

A sound analysis
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:34:23 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 10:54:27 PM
Catholics in the North had it bad,but not as bad as Mandela and his supporters had it. Pure dung.

Are you taking this show on tour?

How much are the tickets
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ned on March 10, 2018, 09:39:39 AM
Long before Mandela was freed and ANC came to government in South Africa, the world knew about apartheid. Still took a long time for it to end.
You can't equate Catholics situation in the north with blacks in South Africa exactly. Does not mean it was all sweetness and light. Also there is the added complication of the wish for a UI. They may have been alternative means of bringing about equality but the unionists, and the British government, sure as hell weren't showing any sign of compromise. Of course there is an argument that things would have changed naturally without conflict but we will never know this. It's the same the world over.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:40:18 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 10:54:27 PM


Like it or lump it, Catholic's born in the North from 1980/1990 onwards have an equal if not better chance at a successful/prosperous life than their Protestant colleagues at the minute, especially West of the Bann. This all comes off the back of the IRA's campaign. Thats a fact. It wasn't through some kind of magic. Violence was the only option and it worked. University figures back this up with the split in numbers.

Post this evidence.

Post the causal link between an indiscriminate bombing in a Protestant town and rights for Catholics.
Post the evidence that there was no option.
Post these university figures
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:42:56 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:02:12 PM
Violence is rarely the only option. To say so is such a convienent lie I can't let it pass.

It was the only option in 1916...and it was the only option after 1969/and or Bloody Sunday, depending on when you want to start.

Prove it.

And if it was the only option why was their neither mass action or mass support?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 10, 2018, 11:52:05 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:40:18 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 10:54:27 PM


Like it or lump it, Catholic's born in the North from 1980/1990 onwards have an equal if not better chance at a successful/prosperous life than their Protestant colleagues at the minute, especially West of the Bann. This all comes off the back of the IRA's campaign. Thats a fact. It wasn't through some kind of magic. Violence was the only option and it worked. University figures back this up with the split in numbers.

Post this evidence.

Post the causal link between an indiscriminate bombing in a Protestant town and rights for Catholics.
Post the evidence that there was no option.
Post these university figures

Don't waste your time on him, just a WUM. Use the block mechanism.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 12:50:59 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 10, 2018, 11:52:05 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:40:18 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 10:54:27 PM


Like it or lump it, Catholic's born in the North from 1980/1990 onwards have an equal if not better chance at a successful/prosperous life than their Protestant colleagues at the minute, especially West of the Bann. This all comes off the back of the IRA's campaign. Thats a fact. It wasn't through some kind of magic. Violence was the only option and it worked. University figures back this up with the split in numbers.

Post this evidence.

Post the causal link between an indiscriminate bombing in a Protestant town and rights for Catholics.
Post the evidence that there was no option.
Post these university figures

Don't waste your time on him, just a WUM. Use the block mechanism.

I hear you but it's a bit broader than that.

Those that supported paramilitary violence have a recurring pattern in the behaviour

Attempt to whitewash history
Invent a level of popular support
Result to name calling
Don't answer questions

It's important that rational people don't let them away with that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:40:18 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 10:54:27 PM


Like it or lump it, Catholic's born in the North from 1980/1990 onwards have an equal if not better chance at a successful/prosperous life than their Protestant colleagues at the minute, especially West of the Bann. This all comes off the back of the IRA's campaign. Thats a fact. It wasn't through some kind of magic. Violence was the only option and it worked. University figures back this up with the split in numbers.

Post this evidence.

Post the causal link between an indiscriminate bombing in a Protestant town and rights for Catholics.
Post the evidence that there was no option.
Post these university figures
The NI economy collapsed between 1970 and the late 90s. The public sector was expanded to provide missing jobs. The economy has never fully recovered.
Catholic levels of education seem to be higher.
Sunningdale was rejected in 1974 or 5 by Paisley and Co.  You could argue that violence delivered it a generation later.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:09:55 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:40:18 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 10:54:27 PM


Like it or lump it, Catholic's born in the North from 1980/1990 onwards have an equal if not better chance at a successful/prosperous life than their Protestant colleagues at the minute, especially West of the Bann. This all comes off the back of the IRA's campaign. Thats a fact. It wasn't through some kind of magic. Violence was the only option and it worked. University figures back this up with the split in numbers.

Post this evidence.

Post the causal link between an indiscriminate bombing in a Protestant town and rights for Catholics.
Post the evidence that there was no option.
Post these university figures
The NI economy collapsed between 1970 and the late 90s. The public sector was expanded to provide missing jobs. The economy has never fully recovered.
Catholic levels of education seem to be higher.
Sunningdale was rejected in 1974 or 5 by Paisley and Co.  You could argue that violence delivered it a generation later.

The argument that it is legitimate to commit murder can NEVER be based on " you could argue " or "seemed"

That sounded like a contempt for human life
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 10, 2018, 08:42:32 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?

The Cairo gang.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 10, 2018, 09:32:04 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 09:40:18 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 09, 2018, 10:54:27 PM


Like it or lump it, Catholic's born in the North from 1980/1990 onwards have an equal if not better chance at a successful/prosperous life than their Protestant colleagues at the minute, especially West of the Bann. This all comes off the back of the IRA's campaign. Thats a fact. It wasn't through some kind of magic. Violence was the only option and it worked. University figures back this up with the split in numbers.

Post this evidence.

Post the causal link between an indiscriminate bombing in a Protestant town and rights for Catholics.
Post the evidence that there was no option.
Post these university figures
The NI economy collapsed between 1970 and the late 90s. The public sector was expanded to provide missing jobs. The economy has never fully recovered.
Catholic levels of education seem to be higher.
Sunningdale was rejected in 1974 or 5 by Paisley and Co.  You could argue that violence delivered it a generation later.

And you could argue that it was the cessation of violence that delivered it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on March 10, 2018, 10:52:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?

How does it feel to bask in the freedom won for you by the IRA? They didn't win that freedom by being choirboys. And the IRA who fought in the occupied six counties of our country weren't choirboys either. Hypocrisy of blue shirts like you makes me want to puke!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: larryin89 on March 10, 2018, 11:40:22 PM
Interesting posts , how some are so naive is astounding.  Without militant republicanism this country would never of progressed to firstly the 26 and then the GFA which now has a good chance of eventually leading to the unification of Ireland, free of all brit interference.  Great times ahead , everyone will have a part to play to make the transition a successful one , outstretching the arms to our fellow Irish brothers and sisters from the PUL  community and persuading them a united Ireland will be peaceful, equal and prosperous.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Syferus on March 11, 2018, 12:08:59 AM
Quote from: larryin89 on March 10, 2018, 11:40:22 PM
Interesting posts , how some are so naive is astounding.  Without militant republicanism this country would never of progressed to firstly the 26 and then the GFA which now has a good chance of eventually leading to the unification of Ireland, free of all brit interference.  Great times ahead , everyone will have a part to play to make the transition a successful one , outstretching the arms to our fellow Irish brothers and sisters from the PUL  community and persuading them a united Ireland will be peaceful, equal and prosperous.

Were they doing a 2 for 1 in the Four Ways or something?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 11, 2018, 12:11:37 AM
While I'm not agreeing with all the IRA did, was there any difference to what British policies were in the North during (and before) the troubles?

The Brits only knew one way to react to protecting their gerrymandered bigoted state, and the IRA responded in kind.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on March 11, 2018, 01:16:16 AM
It just galls me when Irish people buy into this narrative perpetrated by a controlled media, and fall for this bullshit. The odious British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin look like mere amateurs when you do a simple bodycount. The French Resistance were heroes. The Irish Resistance were terrorists... Lick the back of my balls.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on March 11, 2018, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Roll the clock forward - demographic change-> nationalist majority -> majority position abused -> then accepted into a united ireland -> young protestant sees himself as a discriminated against minority -> he joins a paramilitary group-> they plant a bomb in Newry as it's a catholic town -> 10 die including 2 toddlers and a pregnant woman -> not deterred he and his confreres shoot a catholic taxi driver and put a bomb under a gardai car.


I'm not saying any individual step in that chain is going to happen. My point is that should that scenario ever arise I will condemn the criminal and will not consider myself a quisling

I didn't call you a quisling and I'm not gonna argue hypotheticals with you
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on March 11, 2018, 10:37:30 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 11, 2018, 01:16:16 AM
It just galls me when Irish people buy into this narrative perpetrated by a controlled media, and fall for this bullshit. The odious British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin look like mere amateurs when you do a simple bodycount. The French Resistance were heroes. The Irish Resistance were terrorists... Lick the back of my balls.
No sense you mentioning the French Resistance. The I.R.A. used a pro Nazi Breton, who was ran out of France by the Resistance, to build their memorials.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on March 12, 2018, 04:52:22 AM
Quote from: larryin89 on March 10, 2018, 11:40:22 PM
Interesting posts , how some are so naive is astounding.  Without militant republicanism this country would never of progressed to firstly the 26 and then the GFA which now has a good chance of eventually leading to the unification of Ireland, free of all brit interference.  Great times ahead , everyone will have a part to play to make the transition a successful one , outstretching the arms to our fellow Irish brothers and sisters from the PUL  community and persuading them a united Ireland will be peaceful, equal and prosperous.

The GFA would have happened over a decade earlier were it not for the Provos. Even Gerry Adams admitted himself that years were wasted. The actions of the Provos deepened divisions and strengthened the resolve of unionism to keep saying no to everything that looked like progress.

Fact is it was years of behind-the-scenes work in London and Washington by John Hume that got the process moving. The way that man and his contribution have been airbrushed out of history is a disgrace.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trileacman on March 12, 2018, 05:15:15 AM
Quote from: larryin89 on March 10, 2018, 11:40:22 PM
Interesting posts , how some are so naive is astounding.  Without militant republicanism this country would never of progressed to firstly the 26 and then the GFA which now has a good chance of eventually leading to the unification of Ireland, free of all brit interference.  Great times ahead , everyone will have a part to play to make the transition a successful one , outstretching the arms to our fellow Irish brothers and sisters from the PUL  community and persuading them a united Ireland will be peaceful, equal and prosperous.


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jesus that gave me a laugh. Go down to East Belfast, Bushmills, Kesh or Craigavon and go door to door peddling that horseshit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:10:26 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 10, 2018, 08:42:32 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?

The Cairo gang.

Fairly clear that he orchestrated this.

Completely clear that he had popular support for his overall goal.
It's clear that the democratic process was being frustrated/denied.

But that doesn't mean anything goes. Did he have popular support for a campaign of violence or this act of violence? What options did he have? Did he conform to the rules of war (admittedly pre Geneva convention)?

I don't have the answers to those last bits.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 10:52:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?

How does it feel to bask in the freedom won for you by the IRA? They didn't win that freedom by being choirboys. And the IRA who fought in the occupied six counties of our country weren't choirboys either. Hypocrisy of blue shirts like you makes me want to puke!

What makes me a blue shirt?

Post your evidence that the freedoms that I enjoy were won for me by the IRA? Don't just assert it - show the cause and effect relationship. Killing people is too serious for lazy assumptions
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: red hander on March 11, 2018, 01:16:16 AM
It just galls me when Irish people buy into this narrative perpetrated by a controlled media, and fall for this bullshit. The odious British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin look like mere amateurs when you do a simple bodycount. The French Resistance were heroes. The Irish Resistance were terrorists... Lick the back of my balls.

Show me the popular support for the IRA during the troubles?

What were the results of elections the NAZI's were running in France?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 11, 2018, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Roll the clock forward - demographic change-> nationalist majority -> majority position abused -> then accepted into a united ireland -> young protestant sees himself as a discriminated against minority -> he joins a paramilitary group-> they plant a bomb in Newry as it's a catholic town -> 10 die including 2 toddlers and a pregnant woman -> not deterred he and his confreres shoot a catholic taxi driver and put a bomb under a gardai car.


I'm not saying any individual step in that chain is going to happen. My point is that should that scenario ever arise I will condemn the criminal and will not consider myself a quisling

I didn't call you a quisling and I'm not gonna argue hypotheticals with you

Of course your not. I can't stop you availing of an easy hiding place

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:22:48 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 12, 2018, 05:15:15 AM
Quote from: larryin89 on March 10, 2018, 11:40:22 PM
Interesting posts , how some are so naive is astounding.  Without militant republicanism this country would never of progressed to firstly the 26 and then the GFA which now has a good chance of eventually leading to the unification of Ireland, free of all brit interference.  Great times ahead , everyone will have a part to play to make the transition a successful one , outstretching the arms to our fellow Irish brothers and sisters from the PUL  community and persuading them a united Ireland will be peaceful, equal and prosperous.


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jesus that gave me a laugh. Go down to East Belfast, Bushmills, Kesh or Craigavon and go door to door peddling that horseshit.

Out of interest how would you propose to interact with those people, inside a united ireland or inside a Northern Ireland with a nationalist majority in stormont?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 12, 2018, 11:02:58 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 12, 2018, 05:15:15 AM
Quote from: larryin89 on March 10, 2018, 11:40:22 PM
Interesting posts , how some are so naive is astounding.  Without militant republicanism this country would never of progressed to firstly the 26 and then the GFA which now has a good chance of eventually leading to the unification of Ireland, free of all brit interference.  Great times ahead , everyone will have a part to play to make the transition a successful one , outstretching the arms to our fellow Irish brothers and sisters from the PUL  community and persuading them a united Ireland will be peaceful, equal and prosperous.


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jesus that gave me a laugh. Go down to East Belfast, Bushmills, Kesh or Craigavon and go door to door peddling that horseshit.
Portadown maybe? A lot of craigavon is fairly republican
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 12, 2018, 11:31:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:10:26 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 10, 2018, 08:42:32 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?

The Cairo gang.

Fairly clear that he orchestrated this.

Completely clear that he had popular support for his overall goal.
It's clear that the democratic process was being frustrated/denied.

But that doesn't mean anything goes. Did he have popular support for a campaign of violence or this act of violence? What options did he have? Did he conform to the rules of war (admittedly pre Geneva convention)?

I don't have the answers to those last bits.

Pre the execution of the 1916 rebels it was clear that the armed movement didn't have much popular support for armed insurrection that is well documented.
The homerule bill was being stifled and whatever in Westminster during WW1 and beyond, but at the same time due to gerrymandered in build unionist majority and abuse of power in the north the nationalist minority there would not have had a whole pile of options either as can be seen by the way the civil rights movements were met on the streets across the north which were by and large peaceful. There was no movement to a common ground by unionists then before the IRA were able to function.

Is there much of a difference in post 1916 Dublin to late 60's, early 70's Belfast or Derry?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 12, 2018, 12:44:48 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 12, 2018, 11:31:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:10:26 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 10, 2018, 08:42:32 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?

The Cairo gang.

Fairly clear that he orchestrated this.

Completely clear that he had popular support for his overall goal.
It's clear that the democratic process was being frustrated/denied.

But that doesn't mean anything goes. Did he have popular support for a campaign of violence or this act of violence? What options did he have? Did he conform to the rules of war (admittedly pre Geneva convention)?

I don't have the answers to those last bits.

Pre the execution of the 1916 rebels it was clear that the armed movement didn't have much popular support for armed insurrection that is well documented.
The homerule bill was being stifled and whatever in Westminster during WW1 and beyond, but at the same time due to gerrymandered in build unionist majority and abuse of power in the north the nationalist minority there would not have had a whole pile of options either as can be seen by the way the civil rights movements were met on the streets across the north which were by and large peaceful. There was no movement to a common ground by unionists then before the IRA were able to function.

Is there much of a difference in post 1916 Dublin to late 60's, early 70's Belfast or Derry?

Very little.  But it puts the professional hand wringing brigade from the 26 in a bit of a tough spot so it doesn't get much airtime on here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: red hander on March 11, 2018, 01:16:16 AM
It just galls me when Irish people buy into this narrative perpetrated by a controlled media, and fall for this bullshit. The odious British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin look like mere amateurs when you do a simple bodycount. The French Resistance were heroes. The Irish Resistance were terrorists... Lick the back of my balls.

Show me the popular support for the IRA during the troubles?

What were the results of elections the NAZI's were running in France?

So there wasn't 100 thousand people at Bobby Sands funeral? Would that qualify as popular support?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trileacman on March 12, 2018, 09:30:36 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: red hander on March 11, 2018, 01:16:16 AM
It just galls me when Irish people buy into this narrative perpetrated by a controlled media, and fall for this bullshit. The odious British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin look like mere amateurs when you do a simple bodycount. The French Resistance were heroes. The Irish Resistance were terrorists... Lick the back of my balls.

Show me the popular support for the IRA during the troubles?

What were the results of elections the NAZI's were running in France?

So there wasn't 100 thousand people at Bobby Sands funeral? Would that qualify as popular support?

Bobby Sands become a nationalist hero because of his act of civil disobedience not his violent actions. How many went to the funerals of Joe Cahill, Seamus Twomney and Brendan Hughes?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 10:37:55 PM
Quote from: trileacman on March 12, 2018, 09:30:36 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: red hander on March 11, 2018, 01:16:16 AM
It just galls me when Irish people buy into this narrative perpetrated by a controlled media, and fall for this bullshit. The odious British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin look like mere amateurs when you do a simple bodycount. The French Resistance were heroes. The Irish Resistance were terrorists... Lick the back of my balls.

Show me the popular support for the IRA during the troubles?

What were the results of elections the NAZI's were running in France?

So there wasn't 100 thousand people at Bobby Sands funeral? Would that qualify as popular support?

Bobby Sands become a nationalist hero because of his act of civil disobedience not his violent actions. How many went to the funerals of Joe Cahill, Seamus Twomney and Brendan Hughes?

So the thousands in attendance were there because of the hunger strike whilst not supporting what got the men jailed? Don't buy that 1.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 12, 2018, 11:35:56 PM
Could ye move on from Funerals please?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on March 13, 2018, 07:49:38 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 11, 2018, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Roll the clock forward - demographic change-> nationalist majority -> majority position abused -> then accepted into a united ireland -> young protestant sees himself as a discriminated against minority -> he joins a paramilitary group-> they plant a bomb in Newry as it's a catholic town -> 10 die including 2 toddlers and a pregnant woman -> not deterred he and his confreres shoot a catholic taxi driver and put a bomb under a gardai car.


I'm not saying any individual step in that chain is going to happen. My point is that should that scenario ever arise I will condemn the criminal and will not consider myself a quisling

I didn't call you a quisling and I'm not gonna argue hypotheticals with you

Of course your not. I can't stop you availing of an easy hiding place
[/]
You're  making things, that that I'm all likelihood won't happen, up to try and prove a point. I'm not gonna argue that with you. I accepted your position on armed resistance republicanism. I just disagree with it. I haven't called to names or been abusive, but don't let that stop you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 14, 2018, 11:23:50 AM
Ant and Dec have irked the PUL community it seems!

https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/03/12/news/ant-and-dec-spark-online-debate-over-status-of-northern-ireland-1275716/ (https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/03/12/news/ant-and-dec-spark-online-debate-over-status-of-northern-ireland-1275716/)

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 14, 2018, 12:55:36 PM
The name of the State is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" so they are Constitutionally and of course geographically 100% correct.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 14, 2018, 02:00:42 PM
Exactly, and all this British this and British that simply reflects that the UK is not a real union but a colony and its master.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 15, 2018, 08:55:12 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 11:20:21 PM
The Good Friday Agreement, which we should all be supporting, recognises the sensitivity of flags and symbols in the north. We should all behave accordingly and stop using flags as territorial markers. In a normal country flags are used to unite people, in the north they're used to divide.
Sorry but no it doesn't really, the Union Fleg still flies at all official functions and designated days. NI soccer fly the Ulster Banner and play the Queen. As I have stated previously when you go to a GAA match it is one of the few events that flies the Tricolour and plays the anthem and long may that continue. In the same way the soul Frank McClorey thinks nationalists should just suck it up and stand for the Queen, unioionists should do like wise at GAA matches.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 11:40:10 AM
Flags and symbols are important to people. If one side can't accept that the other side wish to maintain allegiances, recognise and remember their dead then what is the Good Friday agreement all about.
You can't just cherry pick what part you wish

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 15, 2018, 01:25:03 PM
Unionists seem to cherry pick all the time and got worse since that Foster became leader of DUPUDA.
Usual crap - only Protestant unionists can be real victims
Anyone killed by Security forces can't be victims
Security forces should be  exempt from prosecution or investigation
Can't have bilingual road signs like they have in Wales and Scotland
And so on and so forth.....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:34:07 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 12, 2018, 11:31:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:10:26 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 10, 2018, 08:42:32 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?

The Cairo gang.

Fairly clear that he orchestrated this.

Completely clear that he had popular support for his overall goal.
It's clear that the democratic process was being frustrated/denied.

But that doesn't mean anything goes. Did he have popular support for a campaign of violence or this act of violence? What options did he have? Did he conform to the rules of war (admittedly pre Geneva convention)?

I don't have the answers to those last bits.

Pre the execution of the 1916 rebels it was clear that the armed movement didn't have much popular support for armed insurrection that is well documented.
The homerule bill was being stifled and whatever in Westminster during WW1 and beyond, but at the same time due to gerrymandered in build unionist majority and abuse of power in the north the nationalist minority there would not have had a whole pile of options either as can be seen by the way the civil rights movements were met on the streets across the north which were by and large peaceful. There was no movement to a common ground by unionists then before the IRA were able to function.

Is there much of a difference in post 1916 Dublin to late 60's, early 70's Belfast or Derry?

So what is the link?

I was sober last Saturday during the day. But I was drunk on Saturday night. Therefore the darkness caused the drunkenness??? No need to look at other factors??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:37:33 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: red hander on March 11, 2018, 01:16:16 AM
It just galls me when Irish people buy into this narrative perpetrated by a controlled media, and fall for this bullshit. The odious British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin look like mere amateurs when you do a simple bodycount. The French Resistance were heroes. The Irish Resistance were terrorists... Lick the back of my balls.

Show me the popular support for the IRA during the troubles?

What were the results of elections the NAZI's were running in France?

So there wasn't 100 thousand people at Bobby Sands funeral? Would that qualify as popular support?

No it wouldn't. Where were these 100 thousand people during the other IRA funerals?

Have a wee think about why they went to that funeral and not that of a bomber, gun man etc
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 10:37:55 PM
Quote from: trileacman on March 12, 2018, 09:30:36 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: red hander on March 11, 2018, 01:16:16 AM
It just galls me when Irish people buy into this narrative perpetrated by a controlled media, and fall for this bullshit. The odious British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin look like mere amateurs when you do a simple bodycount. The French Resistance were heroes. The Irish Resistance were terrorists... Lick the back of my balls.

Show me the popular support for the IRA during the troubles?

What were the results of elections the NAZI's were running in France?

So there wasn't 100 thousand people at Bobby Sands funeral? Would that qualify as popular support?

Bobby Sands become a nationalist hero because of his act of civil disobedience not his violent actions. How many went to the funerals of Joe Cahill, Seamus Twomney and Brendan Hughes?

So the thousands in attendance were there because of the hunger strike whilst not supporting what got the men jailed? Don't buy that 1.

So was the weather wild bad at the other IRA funerals then?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:39:48 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 12, 2018, 11:35:56 PM
Could ye move on from Funerals please?

Funerals and armed republicanism are inextricably linked
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:42:33 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 13, 2018, 07:49:38 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 11, 2018, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 09, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 01:48:46 PM
Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?


So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Roll the clock forward - demographic change-> nationalist majority -> majority position abused -> then accepted into a united ireland -> young protestant sees himself as a discriminated against minority -> he joins a paramilitary group-> they plant a bomb in Newry as it's a catholic town -> 10 die including 2 toddlers and a pregnant woman -> not deterred he and his confreres shoot a catholic taxi driver and put a bomb under a gardai car.


I'm not saying any individual step in that chain is going to happen. My point is that should that scenario ever arise I will condemn the criminal and will not consider myself a quisling

I didn't call you a quisling and I'm not gonna argue hypotheticals with you

Of course your not. I can't stop you availing of an easy hiding place
[/]
You're  making things, that that I'm all likelihood won't happen, up to try and prove a point. I'm not gonna argue that with you. I accepted your position on armed resistance republicanism. I just disagree with it. I haven't called to names or been abusive, but don't let that stop you.

Someone else called me a quisling. That wasn't made abundantly clear in my response to you . Sincerest apologies
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:45:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2018, 02:00:42 PM
Exactly, and all this British this and British that simply reflects that the UK is not a real union but a colony and its master.

And like all other colonies it residents get to vote in elections, sit in the masters parliament and a majority (currently ) want this to continue.

Not quite my understanding of a colony
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:47:56 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 15, 2018, 08:55:12 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2018, 11:20:21 PM
The Good Friday Agreement, which we should all be supporting, recognises the sensitivity of flags and symbols in the north. We should all behave accordingly and stop using flags as territorial markers. In a normal country flags are used to unite people, in the north they're used to divide.
Sorry but no it doesn't really, the Union Fleg still flies at all official functions and designated days. NI soccer fly the Ulster Banner and play the Queen. As I have stated previously when you go to a GAA match it is one of the few events that flies the Tricolour and plays the anthem and long may that continue. In the same way the soul Frank McClorey thinks nationalists should just suck it up and stand for the Queen, unioionists should do like wise at GAA matches.

I hate it when one person uses the stupidity of another to justify their own stupidity
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:49:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 15, 2018, 01:25:03 PM
Unionists seem to cherry pick all the time and got worse since that Foster became leader of DUPUDA.
Usual crap - only Protestant unionists can be real victims
Anyone killed by Security forces can't be victims
Security forces should be  exempt from prosecution or investigation
Can't have bilingual road signs like they have in Wales and Scotland
And so on and so forth.....

Where did she say only Protestant unionists can be real victims?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 05, 2018, 09:04:37 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 05, 2018, 07:34:07 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 12, 2018, 11:31:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 12, 2018, 09:10:26 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 10, 2018, 08:42:32 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 10, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 10, 2018, 04:18:48 PM
So it was OK for Michael Collins to commit murder?

The murder of who exactly?

The Cairo gang.

Fairly clear that he orchestrated this.

Completely clear that he had popular support for his overall goal.
It's clear that the democratic process was being frustrated/denied.

But that doesn't mean anything goes. Did he have popular support for a campaign of violence or this act of violence? What options did he have? Did he conform to the rules of war (admittedly pre Geneva convention)?

I don't have the answers to those last bits.

Pre the execution of the 1916 rebels it was clear that the armed movement didn't have much popular support for armed insurrection that is well documented.
The homerule bill was being stifled and whatever in Westminster during WW1 and beyond, but at the same time due to gerrymandered in build unionist majority and abuse of power in the north the nationalist minority there would not have had a whole pile of options either as can be seen by the way the civil rights movements were met on the streets across the north which were by and large peaceful. There was no movement to a common ground by unionists then before the IRA were able to function.

Is there much of a difference in post 1916 Dublin to late 60's, early 70's Belfast or Derry?

So what is the link?

I was sober last Saturday during the day. But I was drunk on Saturday night. Therefore the darkness caused the drunkenness??? No need to look at other factors??

The link is that if people are denied proper democracy and basic civil rights then they will come out fighting if all other avenues are exhausted whether that's the 1916's or the late 1960's.

The Old IRA were good and New IRA were bad  peddled from Dublin was what I was questioning.

You're a busy boy this morning.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on April 05, 2018, 09:20:39 AM
No use standing on the back of a lorry in West Tyrone roaring about a United Ireland. Show the people that they would be better off in a United Ireland. Show them how the State would be  without excessive taxation. And dont use the old shite comment that the Brits will pay. They wont
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Ty4Sam on April 05, 2018, 09:31:57 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 05, 2018, 09:20:39 AM
No use standing on the back of a lorry in West Tyrone roaring about a United Ireland. Show the people that they would be better off in a United Ireland. Show them how the State would be  without excessive taxation. And dont use the old shite comment that the Brits will pay. They wont

IMO that is the crux of the matter. Prove to the people that they would be financially better off in a United Ireland and you're onto a winner, even a surprising amount of protestants would be in favour I'd guess.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 05, 2018, 09:42:40 AM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on April 05, 2018, 09:31:57 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 05, 2018, 09:20:39 AM
No use standing on the back of a lorry in West Tyrone roaring about a United Ireland. Show the people that they would be better off in a United Ireland. Show them how the State would be  without excessive taxation. And dont use the old shite comment that the Brits will pay. They wont

IMO that is the crux of the matter. Prove to the people that they would be financially better off in a United Ireland and you're onto a winner, even a surprising amount of protestants would be in favour I'd guess.

But as I've said on here before it won't be the Shinners that will convince Protestants of that and that it has to be the sitting Government in the South who may have a lot more sway in the coming years depending on what impact Brexit has in the North.

Ironically enough I think the Special Status that the Shinners want will be an economic stimulant for the north and if anything prolong British rule and Arlenes wish to leave the EU in the same manner as the rest of the UK would increase the likelihood of a United Ireland.

Strange times.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: mrdeeds on April 05, 2018, 10:33:12 PM
Just watched the Paddy Kielty programme. Very good.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on April 05, 2018, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 05, 2018, 10:33:12 PM
Just watched the Paddy Kielty programme. Very good.

No greater incentive for a United Ireland. Make it happen and Arlene will leave!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ned on April 06, 2018, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 05, 2018, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 05, 2018, 10:33:12 PM
Just watched the Paddy Kielty programme. Very good.

No greater incentive for a United Ireland. Make it happen and Arlene will leave!

Two things from her comments, if she doesn't get her own way she'll throw toys out of the pram and she couldn't give an eff about the 'ordinary' unionist. Self serving p***k.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on April 06, 2018, 11:04:08 AM
Quote from: ned on April 06, 2018, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 05, 2018, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 05, 2018, 10:33:12 PM
Just watched the Paddy Kielty programme. Very good.

No greater incentive for a United Ireland. Make it happen and Arlene will leave!

Two things from her comments, if she doesn't get her own way she'll throw toys out of the pram and she couldn't give an eff about the 'ordinary' unionist. Self serving p***k.

I thought it was very telling of her character. Rather than try to build a future for Unionists within a new ireland she would sod off to london or somewhere and abandon the people that got her where she is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on April 06, 2018, 11:21:59 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 06, 2018, 11:04:08 AM
Quote from: ned on April 06, 2018, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 05, 2018, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 05, 2018, 10:33:12 PM
Just watched the Paddy Kielty programme. Very good.

No greater incentive for a United Ireland. Make it happen and Arlene will leave!

Two things from her comments, if she doesn't get her own way she'll throw toys out of the pram and she couldn't give an eff about the 'ordinary' unionist. Self serving p***k.

I thought it was very telling of her character. Rather than try to build a future for Unionists within a new ireland she would sod off to london or somewhere and abandon the people that got her where she is.

Good enough, and hopefully plenty of people who think on the same level as her will follow as all they will bring to the table is negativity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on April 06, 2018, 11:38:34 AM
It shows the mentality of Arlene Foster that a grown woman in her fifties with family would up roots and leave her own land and the people she purports to represent. It's well and good for her saying that because she would have the financial means and the wherewithal to survive elsewhere but impoverished working class unionists may not. What happens if say Scotland choose to leave the UK and it gets broken up. Would she cecome English. Scottish or Welsh?   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on April 06, 2018, 11:52:45 AM
SNP people are saying that Scotland needs to be Independent before a United Ireland comes about so they can stop Arlene  thousands of other bigots from the North landing on them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on April 06, 2018, 12:02:31 PM
Don't be too hopeful lads. Ray Darcy proclaimed he would emigrate if Enda Kenny ever became Taoiseach.  Enda is gone and we're still being subjected to that baldy bollox on the radio and the telly!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dire Ear on April 06, 2018, 12:07:26 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2018, 11:38:34 AM
It shows the mentality of Arlene Foster that a grown woman in her fifties with family would up roots and leave her own land and the people she purports to represent. It's well and good for her saying that because she would have the financial means and the wherewithal to survive elsewhere but impoverished working class unionists may not. What happens if say Scotland choose to leave the UK and it gets broken up. Would she cecome English. Scottish or Welsh?
V good
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on April 06, 2018, 01:20:32 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on April 06, 2018, 12:02:31 PM
Don't be too hopeful lads. Ray Darcy proclaimed he would emigrate if Enda Kenny ever became Taoiseach.  Enda is gone and we're still being subjected to that baldy bollox on the radio and the telly!

How many Holywood celebrities said they would leave if Trump became president? How many are still lounging in their multi million Malibu condos?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2018, 10:35:35 PM
I'd love to see Arlene moving to England where everyone would call her "Paddy."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on April 07, 2018, 12:32:09 PM
Arlene said it's not going to happen, then said it won't happen any time soon. That's not the same thing.

To be honest, Paddy went around Belfast asking about no assembly, people saying get the fnger out etc. To be honest, I think the place would be better off without the daily spewing of shite from politicans on both sides. Papers, TV, radio, Nolan, talkback etc. I mean, what have they done abyway? Any decisions, put it to the people in referenda. It'd be cheaper than paying that shower of bollixes. And at least you'd get results.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on April 07, 2018, 04:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

Quote specifically from the article and I'll believe you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: tiempo on April 07, 2018, 04:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

Quote specifically from the article and I'll believe you.

Read the article yourself, it is a transcript of an interview with your hero. 

You appear in this thread and in the Arlene thread to have an aversion to reading to broaden your knowledge and want others to provide you with a synopsis of the situation/issue on social media rather than taking time to read for yourself.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on April 07, 2018, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: tiempo on April 07, 2018, 04:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

Quote specifically from the article and I'll believe you.

Read the article yourself, it is a transcript of an interview with your hero. 

You appear in this thread and in the Arlene thread to have an aversion to reading to broaden your knowledge and want others to provide you with a synopsis of the situation/issue on social media rather than taking time to read for yourself.

I have read it and cant find reference to the claims you make. If you are able to post them i'll believe you. The Arlene thread, some piece of work that, no sign of the quisling West Brit apologists yet to add a bit of balance and defend the misdeeds of numerous consecutive Irish governments, head in sand brigade. I wouldnt say i agree with everything you've said and hopefully i'll get round to replying in detail, neither have you jumped headlong into a lengthy reply without at least referring to similar misdeeds in the north, again something the quislings are incapable of. Bit of balance here and there eh?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on April 07, 2018, 05:56:05 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: tiempo on April 07, 2018, 04:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

Quote specifically from the article and I'll believe you.

Read the article yourself, it is a transcript of an interview with your hero. 

You appear in this thread and in the Arlene thread to have an aversion to reading to broaden your knowledge and want others to provide you with a synopsis of the situation/issue on social media rather than taking time to read for yourself.

How on earth do you draw that conclusion from the article?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on April 07, 2018, 05:59:05 PM
Owen seems to be seeing what he wants to see.
I believe Trimble has been saying that the Irish Government needs to ease off on its Brexit/no border talk as it might bring Loyalist Paramilitaries/Drug dealers back into action.
1912 threats of violence all over again.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on April 07, 2018, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 07, 2018, 05:59:05 PM
Owen seems to be seeing what he wants to see.
I believe Trimble has been saying that the Irish Government needs to ease off on its Brexit/no border talk as it might bring Loyalist Paramilitaries/Drug dealers back into action.
1912 threats of violence all over again.

Very true.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:23:10 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: tiempo on April 07, 2018, 04:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

Quote specifically from the article and I'll believe you.

Read the article yourself, it is a transcript of an interview with your hero

You appear in this thread and in the Arlene thread to have an aversion to reading to broaden your knowledge and want others to provide you with a synopsis of the situation/issue on social media rather than taking time to read for yourself.

Can nobody express a view on this board that is in any way supportive a SF viewpoint without this constant shit?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

There is so much wrong with your original post that it's not even worth discussing.  To read that article and come up with that rubbish points to you either having a HUGE agenda which means you will basically draw any conclusion you want, regardless of the facts... or you are barely literate.

You are convincing no-one with that sort of bullshit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

There is so much wrong with your original post that it's not even worth discussing.  To read that article and come up with that rubbish points to you either having a HUGE agenda which means you will basically draw any conclusion you want, regardless of the facts... or you are barely literate.

You are convincing no-one with that sort of bullshit.

And under your view/opinion, no one can have a contrary view to SF.  There are many who do not and never will agree with SF in their past, current or future actions.  Any opinion contrary to that of SF and/or those in support of its leadership has no value in your world but not surprising.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on April 07, 2018, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

There is so much wrong with your original post that it's not even worth discussing.  To read that article and come up with that rubbish points to you either having a HUGE agenda which means you will basically draw any conclusion you want, regardless of the facts... or you are barely literate.

You are convincing no-one with that sort of bullshit.

And under your view/opinion, no one can have a contrary view to SF.  There are many who do not and never will agree with SF in their past, current or future actions.  Any opinion contrary to that of SF and/or those in support of its leadership has no value in your world but not surprising.

More bollocks.  I've criticised SF plenty of times on here when I think they're due it.  Personally I reckon that Adams himself is a relic from the past that should be got rid of.  His twitter feed is a joke at times.

But anyway, by saying that you'll never agree with SF on their "future actions" you've just made my point for me.  In your world, it doesn't matter what they did (or will do), if it's SF, it's wrong.

You'll forgive others for treating your opinions on the matter as agenda-driven nonsense when you've just admitted that this is your base point.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:01:58 PM
Quote
DER SPIEGEL: You have defended IRA violence on multiple occasions as "legitimate resistance." As a devout Catholic, how do you reconcile that with your faith?

Adams: It's still my view that the use of armed actions in the given circumstances is a legitimate response. Whether you exercise that right is another issue. And of course, there were many things that the IRA did which were wrong. And I both condemned at the time and deplore and regret it to this time.


So, according to this, any group, republican or loyalist, can define its own circumstances in which it believes that a return to violence or, in the case of those termed as dissidents, a continuation of violence is legitimate. 


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:05:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

There is so much wrong with your original post that it's not even worth discussing.  To read that article and come up with that rubbish points to you either having a HUGE agenda which means you will basically draw any conclusion you want, regardless of the facts... or you are barely literate.

You are convincing no-one with that sort of bullshit.

And under your view/opinion, no one can have a contrary view to SF.  There are many who do not and never will agree with SF in their past, current or future actions.  Any opinion contrary to that of SF and/or those in support of its leadership has no value in your world but not surprising.

More bollocks.  I've criticised SF plenty of times on here when I think they're due it.  Personally I reckon that Adams himself is a relic from the past that should be got rid of.  His twitter feed is a joke at times.

But anyway, by saying that you'll never agree with SF on their "future actions" you've just made my point for me.  In your world, it doesn't matter what they did (or will do), if it's SF, it's wrong.

You'll forgive others for treating your opinions on the matter as agenda-driven nonsense when you've just admitted that this is your base point.

So, my opinion is an agenda and 'bollocks' but yours is superior, balanced and wisdom.  Now I understand.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on April 07, 2018, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

I think you'll find that the former political party leader this week threatening violence was David Trimble
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on April 07, 2018, 07:25:25 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:05:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

There is so much wrong with your original post that it's not even worth discussing.  To read that article and come up with that rubbish points to you either having a HUGE agenda which means you will basically draw any conclusion you want, regardless of the facts... or you are barely literate.

You are convincing no-one with that sort of bullshit.

And under your view/opinion, no one can have a contrary view to SF.  There are many who do not and never will agree with SF in their past, current or future actions.  Any opinion contrary to that of SF and/or those in support of its leadership has no value in your world but not surprising.

More bollocks.  I've criticised SF plenty of times on here when I think they're due it.  Personally I reckon that Adams himself is a relic from the past that should be got rid of.  His twitter feed is a joke at times.

But anyway, by saying that you'll never agree with SF on their "future actions" you've just made my point for me.  In your world, it doesn't matter what they did (or will do), if it's SF, it's wrong.

You'll forgive others for treating your opinions on the matter as agenda-driven nonsense when you've just admitted that this is your base point.

So, my opinion is an agenda and 'bollocks' but yours is superior, balanced and wisdom.  Now I understand.

I don't know what you want me to say.  You just admitted it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on April 07, 2018, 07:26:01 PM
Quote from: heganboy on April 07, 2018, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

I think you'll find that the former political party leader this week threatening violence was David Trimble

Owen wouldn't have seen that.  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:52:30 PM
Quote from: heganboy on April 07, 2018, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.

I think you'll find that the former political party leader this week threatening violence was David Trimble

UDA/UVF violence is just as on-going as republican violence.  Don't think even Trimble can be attributed to directing loyalist violence for his political ends.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on April 07, 2018, 08:42:08 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:01:58 PM
Quote
DER SPIEGEL: You have defended IRA violence on multiple occasions as "legitimate resistance." As a devout Catholic, how do you reconcile that with your faith?

Adams: It's still my view that the use of armed actions in the given circumstances is a legitimate response. Whether you exercise that right is another issue. And of course, there were many things that the IRA did which were wrong. And I both condemned at the time and deplore and regret it to this time.


So, according to this, any group, republican or loyalist, can define its own circumstances in which it believes that a return to violence or, in the case of those termed as dissidents, a continuation of violence is legitimate.

But your original post was Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan

In bold are the parts of that post which don't align to the interview segment you posted. Wouldnt even accuse you of cherry picking or wishful thinking, more wum/fake news end of the spectrum.

If you have another section of the interview that does validate what you originally said then I'll believe you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on April 07, 2018, 10:41:46 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:52:30 PM


UDA/UVF violence is just as on-going as republican violence.  Don't think even Trimble can be attributed to directing loyalist violence for his political ends.

Short memory?

The issue here is that Trimble as a "moderate" unionist making statements to that effect opens up a degree of legitimacy to those conversations. Never mind his own history as a not so moderate unionist.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 11:00:09 PM
Don't think Trimble could be called a moderate Unionist, when required his views/actions could stand up to anything that the DUP could manage.  Seamus Mallon could never deal with his bigotry.

Did you or any of the others actually read the whole article on Trimble?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/06/david-trimble-ireland-risks-provoking-paramilitaries-over-post-brexit-border (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/06/david-trimble-ireland-risks-provoking-paramilitaries-over-post-brexit-border)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:30:23 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 07:01:58 PM
Quote
DER SPIEGEL: You have defended IRA violence on multiple occasions as "legitimate resistance." As a devout Catholic, how do you reconcile that with your faith?

Adams: It's still my view that the use of armed actions in the given circumstances is a legitimate response. Whether you exercise that right is another issue. And of course, there were many things that the IRA did which were wrong. And I both condemned at the time and deplore and regret it to this time.


So, according to this, any group, republican or loyalist, can define its own circumstances in which it believes that a return to violence or, in the case of those termed as dissidents, a continuation of violence is legitimate.

DER SPIEGEL: But hundreds of innocent civilians were killed for that cause.

Adams: Many armed groups were involved in the conflict. Regardless of who was responsible, I regret all the dead. Our cause and our commitment must be to ensure it never happens again.

DER SPIEGEL: Is violence a legitimate means with which to reach one's aims?

Adams: I think in given circumstances. And the circumstances at that time in the north were that people were being denied their rights. The English occupiers refused to concede those and in fact attacked the demonstrators. The most disastrous mistake that the English government made is that they handed the situation over to the generals. That always leads to a militarization of the situation. Military people are not there to pacify, they are there to subjugate.


Feckin Nolan was rabbiting on about this this morning on the radio, so I had to read it to see exactly what Adams had said and like Owen big Nolan was pretty specific about quoting to suit his agenda.

Reading the whole article Adams isn't in denial and is forthright where he believes his community were before the turn to armed conflict, he's not currently advocating violence if the Shinners don't get what they want as he now believes there's other paths now open that weren't there in the late 60's so it takes a fair bit of spin to suggest otherwise.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article?  ;)

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article?  ;)

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article?  ;)

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on April 09, 2018, 10:54:36 AM
And Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,  Gaza...............etc etc etc
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on April 09, 2018, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article?  ;)

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article?  ;)

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

I'm saying violence is violence irrespective if its carried out by a grouping, a faction, an army, a state or whoever, innocent people die at the end of it.

Some countries use the mask of the Geneva convention, but that is just for show as our neighbours can justify.

Have an army, support that army and you defacto support violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end, no different to what Gerry says.

Scale is irrelevant.

What is your stance on a Nuclear "deterrent"?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on April 09, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article?  ;)

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

I'm saying violence is violence irrespective if its carried out by a grouping, a faction, an army, a state or whoever, innocent people die at the end of it.

Some countries use the mask of the Geneva convention, but that is just for show as our neighbours can justify.

Have an army, support that army and you defacto support violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end, no different to what Gerry says.

Scale is irrelevant.

What is your stance on a Nuclear "deterrent"?

I'm against it. I'm against all violence. Gerry isn't, that's fine that's his view.
Interesting how Gerry condones the violence against British and Irish people. Yet Sinn Fein want murders committed against the IRA to be investigated etc. Sinn Fein also condemned the IS attacks across the world yet IS are committing these in order to further their own political ends. I'm sorry but Gerry Adams & Sinn Fein are all over the place when it comes to this.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 12:39:23 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article?  ;)

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

I'm saying violence is violence irrespective if its carried out by a grouping, a faction, an army, a state or whoever, innocent people die at the end of it.

Some countries use the mask of the Geneva convention, but that is just for show as our neighbours can justify.

Have an army, support that army and you defacto support violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end, no different to what Gerry says.

Scale is irrelevant.

What is your stance on a Nuclear "deterrent"?

I'm against it. I'm against all violence. Gerry isn't, that's fine that's his view.
Interesting how Gerry condones the violence against British and Irish people. Yet Sinn Fein want murders committed against the IRA to be investigated etc. Sinn Fein also condemned the IS attacks across the world yet IS are committing these in order to further their own political ends. I'm sorry but Gerry Adams & Sinn Fein are all over the place when it comes to this.

No different to any western powers condemning IS attacks yet they're the ones making a mess of the Middle East.
They're all hyprocrites

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: full moon on April 09, 2018, 12:44:46 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 10:40:40 AM
Given Adams legitimises violence for political end, it's strange he never joined the IRA himself to help 'the struggle'

He was politically active first, did you not read the article?  ;)

Violence or the threat of violence is used day and daily by the US, UK, French, Israeli's, Russians, and just about anyone who has an Army deployed anywhere where it shouldn't be.

It's not about the size of the gun.

Ok so now you are comparing the US Army to the IRA. Got it.
How anyone can condone violence against Men, Women & Children for their own political ends is beyond me.

Go to Nagasaki and ask them.

I don't follow. What is your point?
Are you are telling me the IRA was supported by a government in its failed war against Britain? Are you suggesting that the IRA was actually supported widely in it's campaign?

I'm saying violence is violence irrespective if its carried out by a grouping, a faction, an army, a state or whoever, innocent people die at the end of it.

Some countries use the mask of the Geneva convention, but that is just for show as our neighbours can justify.

Have an army, support that army and you defacto support violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end, no different to what Gerry says.

Scale is irrelevant.

What is your stance on a Nuclear "deterrent"?

I'm against it. I'm against all violence. Gerry isn't, that's fine that's his view.
Interesting how Gerry condones the violence against British and Irish people. Yet Sinn Fein want murders committed against the IRA to be investigated etc. Sinn Fein also condemned the IS attacks across the world yet IS are committing these in order to further their own political ends. I'm sorry but Gerry Adams & Sinn Fein are all over the place when it comes to this.

Do you have any clue about the the history of violence in Ireland and the formation of the Irish Free State? The historical igorance is breathtaking.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on April 09, 2018, 02:19:22 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Adams has just sanctioned a continuation of republican violence and a resumption at any time in the future if things don't go to his plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gerry-adams-a-1201660.html)

Does Mary Lou agree with his position on the use of violence? No doubt his appointee in the North will agree.

Not much attempt here at reconciliation or bringing a United Ireland about by consent as agreed in the GFA.


Adams in that article has justified the use of violence in the past which I cannot support but I don't exactly find it surprising either.

However, I cannot see exactly where he has sanctioned the resumption of violence in future.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: full moon on April 09, 2018, 02:30:57 PM
There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on April 09, 2018, 02:44:00 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 02:30:57 PM
There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.

The first statement is a fact. The second one is just an opinion not a fact because we really don't know.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AhNowRef on April 09, 2018, 04:04:41 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 07, 2018, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 07, 2018, 06:32:26 PM
PS.

There is so much wrong with your original post that it's not even worth discussing.  To read that article and come up with that rubbish points to you either having a HUGE agenda which means you will basically draw any conclusion you want, regardless of the facts... or you are barely literate.

You are convincing no-one with that sort of bullshit.

And under your view/opinion, no one can have a contrary view to SF.  There are many who do not and never will agree with SF in their past, current or future actions.  Any opinion contrary to that of SF and/or those in support of its leadership has no value in your world but not surprising.

Here Owen, I think you've just ruined your argument right there .. the bits in bold sort of give the game away dont you think  ::) 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on April 09, 2018, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 02:30:57 PM
There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.

Utter bullshit. A lie peddled by the IRA to account for years of terrorism and racketeering against the very communities they profuse to protect.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: full moon on April 09, 2018, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 02:30:57 PM
There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.

Utter bullshit. A lie peddled by the IRA to account for years of terrorism and racketeering against the very communities they profuse to protect.
Explain how it would have happened otherwise. The nonsense about the SDLP is just not reality, all they ever done was bend over and take it, then suck up to their betters as much possible. The people have no time for them, soon they will not be in existence. They want join Fianna Fail now, because they know their time is up

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on April 09, 2018, 08:08:31 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 02:30:57 PM
There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.

Utter bullshit. A lie peddled by the IRA to account for years of terrorism and racketeering against the very communities they profuse to protect.
Explain how it would have happened otherwise. The nonsense about the SDLP is just not reality, all they ever done was bend over and take it, then suck up to their betters as much possible. The people have no time for them, soon they will not be in existence. They want join Fianna Fail now, because they know their time is up

The GFA wouldn't have happened without the SDLP.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: full moon on April 09, 2018, 09:16:02 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 09, 2018, 08:08:31 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 06:29:33 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2018, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 02:30:57 PM
There would be no Irish republic without violence. Fact.

There would be no Good Friday Agreement without violence. Fact number 2.

Utter bullshit. A lie peddled by the IRA to account for years of terrorism and racketeering against the very communities they profuse to protect.
Explain how it would have happened otherwise. The nonsense about the SDLP is just not reality, all they ever done was bend over and take it, then suck up to their betters as much possible. The people have no time for them, soon they will not be in existence. They want join Fianna Fail now, because they know their time is up

The GFA wouldn't have happened without the SDLP.
It wouldn't have happened without the Provos and Sinn Fein. To think the SDLP would have accomplished it from the 70s themselves is laughable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on April 09, 2018, 10:16:58 PM
John Hume's good work helped pave the way for the gfa. Unionists wouldn't have entertained the idea of any deal with SF alone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: full moon on April 09, 2018, 11:24:40 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.
He's irrelevant and despised by most.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on April 10, 2018, 10:23:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.

50% + 1 was good enough for Brexit so I see no reason why it would not be good enough for UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 10, 2018, 10:57:20 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.

Was he a good man for the gambling (All that sterling he won on a horse)?  I'd raise his to 53-47 and see if he blinks.

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 10:57:29 AM
Quote from: GJL on April 10, 2018, 10:23:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.

50% + 1 was good enough for Brexit so I see no reason why it would not be good enough for UI.

Well, the reason for Norn Iron existing was to contain a unionist majority. If there's a result of 50.01% in favour of a UI, there is no longer a unionist majority, and therefore Norn Iron ceases to exist.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 10, 2018, 11:01:51 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 10:57:29 AM
Well, the reason for Norn Iron existing was to contain a unionist majority. If there's a result of 50.01% in favour of a UI, there is no longer a unionist majority, and therefore Norn Iron ceases to exist.

I'd say some lunatics would call for a boundary commission and look to make a smaller state.  They have a long way to go to Gibraltar size (6.8km2)

/Jim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on April 10, 2018, 12:42:47 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 10, 2018, 11:01:51 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 10:57:29 AM
Well, the reason for Norn Iron existing was to contain a unionist majority. If there's a result of 50.01% in favour of a UI, there is no longer a unionist majority, and therefore Norn Iron ceases to exist.

I'd say some lunatics would call for a boundary commission and look to make a smaller state.  They have a long way to go to Gibraltar size (6.8km2)

/Jim.

They can keep Larne, if they really want.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on April 10, 2018, 01:18:06 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 11:24:40 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.
He's irrelevant and despised by most.
+1.

Going off tangent but what are people's thoughts about a mooted FF amalgamation with SDLP for future NI elections?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on April 10, 2018, 01:55:20 PM
Great to see AI parties in the north, can only help unification, regardless of potential increased split of nationalist vote
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on April 10, 2018, 02:00:46 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 10, 2018, 01:18:06 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 11:24:40 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.
He's irrelevant and despised by most.
+1.

Going off tangent but what are people's thoughts about a mooted FF amalgamation with SDLP for future NI elections?
I'd say a lot of Builders are rubbing their hands......
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on April 10, 2018, 02:01:03 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 10, 2018, 01:18:06 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 11:24:40 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.
He's irrelevant and despised by most.
+1.

Going off tangent but what are people's thoughts about a mooted FF amalgamation with SDLP for future NI elections?

Wouldn't be a unique development given the long established Tory/DUP axis. DUP basically the terrorist arm of the Tory party.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on April 10, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
Cannot believe FF are still a force in the Republic after nearly sinking the country a few years back. Jaysus, people have short memories. I know the SDLP are in dire straits, but to hitch their wagon to that shower of corrupt clowns shows how bad things are for wee Colum. Saying that, McCrossan would fit right in with FF, the snivelling little shit
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on April 10, 2018, 05:27:16 PM
Think this is the SDLP signing their own death warrant once and for all. Hume knew by signing the GFA that he was probably going to cost his party its position in the future little did he know just haw far they would fall.

Not taking away from the man, he was a great man. Be nothing here only for him, McGuinness and Adams.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 10, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
Cannot believe FF are still a force in the Republic after nearly sinking the country a few years back. Jaysus, people have short memories. I know the SDLP are in dire straits, but to hitch their wagon to that shower of corrupt clowns shows how bad things are for wee Colum. Saying that, McCrossan would fit right in with FF, the snivelling little shit

When it comes to politics, people have short memories. Thatcher and her Tory's wreck the place, then the Brits couldn't get them back quick enough.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 19, 2018, 07:23:03 PM
Startling news for Arlene & Co:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43823506 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43823506)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on April 19, 2018, 07:42:52 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 19, 2018, 07:23:03 PM
Startling news for Arlene & Co:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43823506 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43823506)

Not really startling the actual moment has already come and gone with most number crunchers estimating that the catholic community background overtook the Protestant community background at the end of 2016. However its not a majority ie over 50% that will take a lot longer. He also dwells a lot on the identity question which was asked for the first time in 2011 and probably added as cover for the changing community background totals. Most people answered it based on a number of factors and probably didn't expect it to be used as another orange green stat with literally everybody claiming the 'northern irish' for themselves expect more British and Irish answers next time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on April 19, 2018, 07:48:43 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 10, 2018, 01:18:06 PM
Quote from: full moon on April 09, 2018, 11:24:40 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on April 09, 2018, 11:01:20 PM
So Bertie Ahearn after saying on Newsnight that a border poll which throws up a 52-48 majority for a United Ireland would not be good enough.  What does he want, 60-40, 70-30 or the best of three ... when democracy is no longer democracy.
He's irrelevant and despised by most.
+1.

Going off tangent but what are people's thoughts about a mooted FF amalgamation with SDLP for future NI elections?

This seems to come up every few years. Couldn't see it happening. SDLP's heart beats closer to Labour in any case.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on April 20, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
So in 2021, the 100th anniversary of NI, a gerrymandered Protestant state for a Protestant people, and we will have a Catholic majority.  Oh the irony of it all.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on April 20, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 10, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
Cannot believe FF are still a force in the Republic after nearly sinking the country a few years back. Jaysus, people have short memories. I know the SDLP are in dire straits, but to hitch their wagon to that shower of corrupt clowns shows how bad things are for wee Colum. Saying that, McCrossan would fit right in with FF, the snivelling little shit

When it comes to politics, people have short memories. Thatcher and her Tory's wreck the place, then the Brits couldn't get them back quick enough.
People have short memories. The Provos plant bombs ,murder innocent men women and children, disappear so called informers on the instruction of the worst informer of all in a hierarchy riddled with informers and still people will vote for their political wing. It isn't only FF have a history.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on April 20, 2018, 02:39:54 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 20, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 10, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
Cannot believe FF are still a force in the Republic after nearly sinking the country a few years back. Jaysus, people have short memories. I know the SDLP are in dire straits, but to hitch their wagon to that shower of corrupt clowns shows how bad things are for wee Colum. Saying that, McCrossan would fit right in with FF, the snivelling little shit

When it comes to politics, people have short memories. Thatcher and her Tory's wreck the place, then the Brits couldn't get them back quick enough.
People have short memories. The Provos plant bombs ,murder innocent men women and children, disappear so called informers on the instruction of the worst informer of all in a hierarchy riddled with informers and still people will vote for their political wing. It isn't only FF have a history.

<mic drop>
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on April 20, 2018, 05:03:42 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 20, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 10, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
Cannot believe FF are still a force in the Republic after nearly sinking the country a few years back. Jaysus, people have short memories. I know the SDLP are in dire straits, but to hitch their wagon to that shower of corrupt clowns shows how bad things are for wee Colum. Saying that, McCrossan would fit right in with FF, the snivelling little shit

When it comes to politics, people have short memories. Thatcher and her Tory's wreck the place, then the Brits couldn't get them back quick enough.
People have short memories. The Provos plant bombs ,murder innocent men women and children, disappear so called informers on the instruction of the worst informer of all in a hierarchy riddled with informers and still people will vote for their political wing. It isn't only FF have a history.

The Provos planted bombs with the support of the majority of the Catholic/Nationalist community. So people are just carrying on their support. It's not short memories...its simply people agreed with the means to an end and are now carrying on their support??? Don't understand how you dont get this...and befor eyou get on your high horse and start naming victims, mistakes were made and people died that shouldnt have. But for a whole are we better off now than in the 60's and closer to what we want and are entitled to? Damn right we are.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on April 20, 2018, 06:00:03 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on April 20, 2018, 05:03:42 PM

The Provos planted bombs with the support of the majority of the Catholic/Nationalist community.

So how do you explain the SDLP being the biggest nationalist party for years until well after the Provo ceasefire?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on April 20, 2018, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 20, 2018, 06:00:03 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on April 20, 2018, 05:03:42 PM

The Provos planted bombs with the support of the majority of the Catholic/Nationalist community.

So how do you explain the SDLP being the biggest nationalist party for years until well after the Provo ceasefire?

Just allow for the fact he is one of the Shinners useful idiots brainwashed by Adams
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on April 20, 2018, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on April 20, 2018, 05:03:42 PM

The Provos planted bombs with the support of the majority of the Catholic/Nationalist community. So people are just carrying on their support. 
WTF?? Do you really believe this? SF's attempts to re-write the last 40 years are totally pathetic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on April 20, 2018, 08:00:12 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 20, 2018, 06:00:03 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on April 20, 2018, 05:03:42 PM

The Provos planted bombs with the support of the majority of the Catholic/Nationalist community.

So how do you explain the SDLP being the biggest nationalist party for years until well after the Provo ceasefire?

When exactly did SF overtake SDLP, would it be 10 years ago or more at this stage?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on April 20, 2018, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 20, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 10, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
Cannot believe FF are still a force in the Republic after nearly sinking the country a few years back. Jaysus, people have short memories. I know the SDLP are in dire straits, but to hitch their wagon to that shower of corrupt clowns shows how bad things are for wee Colum. Saying that, McCrossan would fit right in with FF, the snivelling little shit

When it comes to politics, people have short memories. Thatcher and her Tory's wreck the place, then the Brits couldn't get them back quick enough.
People have short memories. The Provos plant bombs ,murder innocent men women and children, disappear so called informers on the instruction of the worst informer of all in a hierarchy riddled with informers and still people will vote for their political wing. It isn't only FF have a history.

You're right. Freedom for 26 of the 32 counties was won by asking those awfully nice British chaps if they would mind awfully f**king off ... hypocrisy seeps out of almost everything you post, ya clown  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: mrdeeds on April 20, 2018, 09:58:03 PM
Anyone hear the lad on James O Brien LBC radio show. Should be a referendum in Ireland to see of want a UI back with UK out of EU. Also thought boarder question be solved by microchipping the Irish.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on April 20, 2018, 10:30:43 PM
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 20, 2018, 09:58:03 PM
Anyone hear the lad on James O Brien LBC radio show. Should be a referendum in Ireland to see of want a UI back with UK out of EU. Also thought boarder question be solved by microchipping the Irish.

That's already happened. They carry it in their hand.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on April 20, 2018, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 20, 2018, 10:30:43 PM
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 20, 2018, 09:58:03 PM
Anyone hear the lad on James O Brien LBC radio show. Should be a referendum in Ireland to see of want a UI back with UK out of EU. Also thought boarder question be solved by microchipping the Irish.

That's already happened. They carry it in their hand.

People have no idea how much privacy they give up with smart phones. Discovered recently the Google maps history feature. Was able to check where I was, to the minute back in 2013 because I was signed into gmail and had location on. It's scary stuff.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on April 21, 2018, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: red hander on April 20, 2018, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 20, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 10, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
Cannot believe FF are still a force in the Republic after nearly sinking the country a few years back. Jaysus, people have short memories. I know the SDLP are in dire straits, but to hitch their wagon to that shower of corrupt clowns shows how bad things are for wee Colum. Saying that, McCrossan would fit right in with FF, the snivelling little shit

When it comes to politics, people have short memories. Thatcher and her Tory's wreck the place, then the Brits couldn't get them back quick enough.
People have short memories. The Provos plant bombs ,murder innocent men women and children, disappear so called informers on the instruction of the worst informer of all in a hierarchy riddled with informers and still people will vote for their political wing. It isn't only FF have a history.

You're right. Freedom for 26 of the 32 counties was won by asking those awfully nice British chaps if they would mind awfully f**king off ... hypocrisy seeps out of almost everything you post, ya clown  ::)

Put those goalposts back where you got them. We're not talking about the war of independence.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on April 21, 2018, 12:22:08 AM
Quote from: hardstation on April 21, 2018, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 21, 2018, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: red hander on April 20, 2018, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 20, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 10, 2018, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 10, 2018, 04:33:04 PM
Cannot believe FF are still a force in the Republic after nearly sinking the country a few years back. Jaysus, people have short memories. I know the SDLP are in dire straits, but to hitch their wagon to that shower of corrupt clowns shows how bad things are for wee Colum. Saying that, McCrossan would fit right in with FF, the snivelling little shit

When it comes to politics, people have short memories. Thatcher and her Tory's wreck the place, then the Brits couldn't get them back quick enough.
People have short memories. The Provos plant bombs ,murder innocent men women and children, disappear so called informers on the instruction of the worst informer of all in a hierarchy riddled with informers and still people will vote for their political wing. It isn't only FF have a history.

You're right. Freedom for 26 of the 32 counties was won by asking those awfully nice British chaps if they would mind awfully f**king off ... hypocrisy seeps out of almost everything you post, ya clown  ::)

Put those goalposts back where you got them. We're not talking about the war of independence.
Ah come on, you're bringing up stuff from ages ago.
I see what you did there! :)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on April 21, 2018, 09:07:44 AM
To hell with the future
Let's live in the past
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on April 21, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 21, 2018, 09:07:44 AM
To hell with the future
Let's live in the past

The smugness of those whose freedom was won by militant republicans and who didn't have to live in the partitioned part of the country never ceases to amaze  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on April 21, 2018, 02:20:35 PM
The past is the past.
Future please.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on April 21, 2018, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 21, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 21, 2018, 09:07:44 AM
To hell with the future
Let's live in the past

The smugness of those whose freedom was won by militant republicans and who didn't have to live in the partitioned part of the country never ceases to amaze  ::)

We were both partitioned.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: longballin on April 21, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 21, 2018, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 21, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 21, 2018, 09:07:44 AM
To hell with the future
Let's live in the past

The smugness of those whose freedom was won by militant republicans and who didn't have to live in the partitioned part of the country never ceases to amaze  ::)

We were both partitioned.

That's a brilliant reply... well said.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on April 21, 2018, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 21, 2018, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 21, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 21, 2018, 09:07:44 AM
To hell with the future
Let's live in the past

The smugness of those whose freedom was won by militant republicans and who didn't have to live in the partitioned part of the country never ceases to amaze  ::)

We were both partitioned.

Thought that myself. The point he was making was right though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on April 21, 2018, 06:15:13 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 21, 2018, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 21, 2018, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 21, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 21, 2018, 09:07:44 AM
To hell with the future
Let's live in the past

The smugness of those whose freedom was won by militant republicans and who didn't have to live in the partitioned part of the country never ceases to amaze  ::)

We were both partitioned.

Thought that myself. The point he was making was right though.

I do get where he's coming from all right.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on April 21, 2018, 07:19:19 PM
'Occupied' a better word for what was meant
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Avondhu star on April 21, 2018, 11:45:38 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 21, 2018, 02:11:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 21, 2018, 09:07:44 AM
To hell with the future
Let's live in the past

The smugness of those whose freedom was won by militant republicans and who didn't have to live in the partitioned part of the country never ceases to amaze  ::)

Let's keep on living in 1922. It will really improve our situation
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AQMP on May 15, 2018, 10:18:56 AM
Is the fact that the British PM is not confident that NI would vote to remain in the UK in a border poll not a signal to the SoS that she should call one?? ;)

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/theresa-may-not-confident-unionists-would-win-irish-border-poll-reports-36908576.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on May 15, 2018, 11:56:40 AM
Quote from: AQMP on May 15, 2018, 10:18:56 AM
Is the fact that the British PM is not confident that NI would vote to remain in the UK in a border poll not a signal to the SoS that she should call one?? ;)

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/theresa-may-not-confident-unionists-would-win-irish-border-poll-reports-36908576.html

Overheard in cabinet earlier... is there anything to be said for another pogrom
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on May 15, 2018, 11:04:21 PM
Quote from: AQMP on May 15, 2018, 10:18:56 AM
Is the fact that the British PM is not confident that NI would vote to remain in the UK in a border poll not a signal to the SoS that she should call one?? ;)

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/theresa-may-not-confident-unionists-would-win-irish-border-poll-reports-36908576.html

The fact that this conversation was leaked is not a coincidence. The Irish border issue is becoming a source of real frustration for some English brexiteers since it is significantly stalling progress on reaching an agreed deal.

A border poll is inevitable in the not too distant future and it might be in Unionists interests to hold it sooner rather than later. Still, I would suspect that their naturally fearful nature will not even countenance the actual poll being agreed upon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on May 17, 2018, 11:47:43 PM

https://www.channel4.com/news/brexit-senior-unionists-from-northern-ireland-ready-to-talk-to-dublin-about-possible-unification

Move along nahin to see here
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on May 18, 2018, 03:01:13 AM
If you look at the set up that's taking place, the idea of Great Britain ditching the 6 in order to do a last minute switch to hard Brexit is not out of the question.

The effort must now be in setting up an inclusive island nation welcoming to all to be achieved through peaceful means with respect for all traditions.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on May 18, 2018, 07:39:00 AM
Quote from: tiempo on May 17, 2018, 11:47:43 PM

https://www.channel4.com/news/brexit-senior-unionists-from-northern-ireland-ready-to-talk-to-dublin-about-possible-unification

Move along nahin to see here

Good link. Thankfully most people interviewed came across well considering they usually go to the headbangers for this sort of thing. Still depressing that a couple of educated protestant students seem to have their head in the sand and oblivious to whars happening.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on May 18, 2018, 07:45:17 AM
Just to add  some caution Jamie Dornans dad is about as Unionist lite as you can get. Sure even Jamie came across as a nationalist in that Eamon Mallie interview but on the plus side its only this demographic that is needed to tip a border poll  in favour of a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Insane Bolt on May 18, 2018, 09:16:56 AM
It's a long way to Tipperary 😜
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on June 08, 2018, 07:15:36 PM
On this evening's Last Word on Today FM, an analyst from the Irish Examiner reckoned, irrespective of how the 6 counties would vote in a border poll, there is a majority in the 26 who would vote against Irish reunification.  He reckoned you could have a situation where the 6 counties vote for it, and the 26 against it.  I find it difficult to believe that, given the choice, the 26 counties would reject reunification. Maybe I'm naive.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: mrdeeds on June 08, 2018, 07:39:14 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on June 08, 2018, 07:15:36 PM
On this evening's Last Word on Today FM, an analyst from the Irish Examiner reckoned, irrespective of how the 6 counties would vote in a border poll, there is a majority in the 26 who would vote against Irish reunification.  He reckoned you could have a situation where the 6 counties vote for it, and the 26 against it.  I find it difficult to believe that, given the choice, the 26 counties would reject reunification. Maybe I'm naive.

That was under the circumstances of a higher tax bill.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ardtole on June 08, 2018, 10:24:08 PM
I'm from the north and I've been living in the south for the past 15 years. I'd be surprised if more than 35/40% of the southern electorate voted for a United Ireland. I'd like to be proved wrong, I've nothing to back this up with but it's just a general impression I get.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on June 08, 2018, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: ardtole on June 08, 2018, 10:24:08 PM
I'm from the north and I've been living in the south for the past 15 years. I'd be surprised if more than 35/40% of the southern electorate voted for a United Ireland. I'd like to be proved wrong, I've nothing to back this up with but it's just a general impression I get.

65/35 in favour of unification I'd say - conservatively. 
There's a hard-core who would vote yes regardless of the conditions.  a sizeable majority would be swayed by the t&cs i.e. how it affects them in the pocket. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 08, 2018, 11:57:57 PM
Quote from: ardtole on June 08, 2018, 10:24:08 PM
I'm from the north and I've been living in the south for the past 15 years. I'd be surprised if more than 35/40% of the southern electorate voted for a United Ireland. I'd like to be proved wrong, I've nothing to back this up with but it's just a general impression I get.

There will be good majority. It would be like Gemany, no interest before, much griping afterwards, but a definite tide at the time of unification. That said, as a taxpayer I would fully support driving a hard deal, why should the Irish people accept Britain handing over a banjaxed NI expecting them to fix it up?


BBC Poll
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44398502

The game would be on, if there was a suitable economic model.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/9E69/production/_101935504_howstrongly-nc.png)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/5049/production/_101935502_constitutional_position-nc.png)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/2939/production/_101935501_border_poll-nc.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on June 09, 2018, 01:23:02 AM
With the DUP holding the conservatives to ransom and the border preventing any real discussion on future trade deals with the EU. Would the British people be in favour of a United Ireland to get rid of the troublesome north?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 09, 2018, 01:31:13 AM
Quote from: Windmill abu on June 09, 2018, 01:23:02 AM
With the DUP holding the conservatives to ransom and the border preventing any real discussion on future trade deals with the EU. Would the British people be in favour of a United Ireland to get rid of the troublesome north?

What NI  needs to for GB to stay in a rational relationship with the EU and a few extra arrangements, mostly to do with agribusiness. I'm not sure if Brexit would now get a  majority in Britain, but even if it did there would still be majority in favour of a Norway type deal. So NI is only really obstructing the more looney end of the Brexiteers, not all the people in Britain.

One real problem is that giving NI a really good deal would immediately lead to Scotland asking for similar and a lot of people are less keen on that. Some of the great minds here need to devise a formula that doesn't give Scotland as good a deal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on June 09, 2018, 02:02:51 AM
England & Wales without N.I. and Scotland would probably be better off financially. Why do they want to keep a Union created hundreds of years ago with little or no relevance in the modern world. Are the north and Scotland the last outposts of the British Empire?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Ball Hopper on June 09, 2018, 03:25:58 AM
Maybe a coalition of the south, the north and Scotland would work.

Need a good name though...how about the Fenian, Ulster, Caledonia Kingdom.  Any acronym in there to help?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on June 09, 2018, 05:15:44 AM
If we just became independent then we could be called the Combined Unionist Nationalist Territory.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on June 09, 2018, 05:38:13 AM
Quote from: Windmill abu on June 09, 2018, 05:15:44 AM
If we just became independent then we could be called the Combined Unionist Nationalist Territory.

My nomination for post of the year^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 12, 2018, 10:51:36 AM
Quote from: Windmill abu on June 09, 2018, 02:02:51 AM
England & Wales without N.I. and Scotland would probably be better off financially. Why do they want to keep a Union created hundreds of years ago with little or no relevance in the modern world. Are the north and Scotland the last outposts of the British Empire?

Outside of London anything would be better it seems;

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155365175017382&set=a.10151016350937382.419287.633272381&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155365175017382&set=a.10151016350937382.419287.633272381&type=3&theater)

(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/34703109_10155365175022382_1380269838869463040_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeEEwDCw9N-TXzao66IIL4kUxXblfM6We-X0p75-BfX-7iCr-A2gK3IEmHOs6YYGnSraxRR6x1u7LO22AYxtGCxSbqv9vQU8yv3LK48YNeaWJw&oh=e98b3e2dce15738ec7e4b2979f7efadb&oe=5B77FBA9)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 12, 2018, 11:11:53 AM
This one shows the regional spread in the different EU countries.
The UK sticks out for having such gross differences in production between places. Obviously incomes may differ less if money is moved around but as public expenditure has been cut back this has reduced.

(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/9/95/Gross_domestic_product_%28GDP%29_per_inhabitant_in_purchasing_power_standards_%28PPS%29_in_relation_to_the_EU-28_average%2C_by_NUTS_2_regions%2C_2015_%28%25_of_the_EU-28_average%2C_EU-28_%3D_100%29_RYB17.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 25, 2018, 05:17:39 PM
North v South is a bit like Monaghan v Waterford.

(https://img.rasset.ie/00101d9c-614.jpg?ratio=1.81)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Insane Bolt on June 25, 2018, 05:51:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 25, 2018, 05:17:39 PM
North v South is a bit like Monaghan v Waterford.

(https://img.rasset.ie/00101d9c-614.jpg?ratio=1.81)

Where would the 227000+ jobs be created?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LooseCannon on June 25, 2018, 07:09:57 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on June 25, 2018, 05:51:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 25, 2018, 05:17:39 PM
North v South is a bit like Monaghan v Waterford.

(https://img.rasset.ie/00101d9c-614.jpg?ratio=1.81)

Where would the 227000+ jobs be created?
The Strategic Communications Unit in the Department of An Taoiseach.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on July 27, 2018, 08:35:43 AM
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-could-be-be-financially-better-off-in-a-united-ireland-claims-new-report-37157908.html


It's not exactly a fully blown IMF report on the matter, but at least someone is coming up with an economic argument.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: heganboy on July 29, 2018, 05:18:36 AM
Peter Robinson with the cat amongst the pigeons:

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/anger-as-peter-robinson-says-northern-ireland-should-prepare-for-a-united-ireland-37163297.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on July 29, 2018, 11:05:38 AM
Good man Peter.
1st reality check - but little Regeen keeping the head in the sand.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on July 30, 2018, 11:27:22 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 29, 2018, 11:05:38 AM
Good man Peter.
1st reality check - but little Regeen keeping the head in the sand.

Gotta love Jim Allister. One of the reasons he gave for not counternancing a UI was the NI Subvention from Westminster as if it was something to be proud off.

Spongers!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 03, 2018, 11:26:40 AM
Another poll showing a 20% swing between no Brexit and hard Brexit on the UI issue, with UI going from 35% to 56% if there isa hard Brexit. Isn't it marvellous that the DUP are pursuing this policy!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45391529
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 02, 2018, 11:32:57 AM
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/opinion/northern-ireland-brexit-unionism.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 02, 2018, 12:04:34 PM
I keep coming back to this quote by Stephen Rea

"Unionists were, and still are, cut off not just from Catholics and from Ireland, but from the world. It's pure isolation. And it is so drummed into the young that they cannot let go of these views."

If Irish is x, Unionism is 1-x
And NI is very weak. So with Brexit if the choice is EU or GB the DUP will choose GB because EU is partly Ireland. But the UK is banjaxed.

So they cut off their nose to spite their face.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 02, 2018, 12:27:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 02, 2018, 12:04:34 PM
I keep coming back to this quote by Stephen Rea

"Unionists were, and still are, cut off not just from Catholics and from Ireland, but from the world. It's pure isolation. And it is so drummed into the young that they cannot let go of these views."

If Irish is x, Unionism is 1-x

Good point. The Irish x has changed over the years and 1-x now doesn't have much left of any use.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on November 02, 2018, 12:53:23 PM
Long gone is the stereotype of the South being an economic wasteland compared to glorious Ulster. The tables have completely turned. Middle of the road people in the north are looking towards Dublin as a prosperous outlook looking city.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Solo_run on November 02, 2018, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 02, 2018, 12:53:23 PM
Long gone is the stereotype of the South being an economic wasteland compared to glorious Ulster. The tables have completely turned. Middle of the road people in the north are looking towards Dublin as a prosperous outlook looking city.

If I was living back over there I would be heading to Dublin but would live up north and commute.

The job market in Dublin is much better than what Belfast has to offer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 02, 2018, 01:11:22 PM
I was in Lebanon a few years ago in a bar that had pictures of 60s Hollywood stars like Ryan O'Neal on the wall. Beirut used to be a financial centre and a place for the jet set but in 1975 the civil war started. After it ended in the early 90s finance had moved to the gulf and the jet set were somewhere else. You can't drop out of the world for 10 or 20 or 30 years to deal with sectarian headcounts and expect the world to wait.

Unionists are Brits and Brits are very bad at industrial strategy. Thatcher destroyed a lot of the UK industrial base in the 80s and put millions of people on disability. NI did something similar , dropped the industry and replaced it with nothing .It let the industrial knowledge it had fall away after shipbuilding etc got into trouble.
England could maybe afford to shaft the coalfields but NI could not afford to move everything to services or else to the public sector.   

The South never really had any industry so it didn't have to downsize and it has a fairly decent education system. Plus it is politically stable. If a company has to choose between the South and the North it is no contest. 

NI was only possible because of the economics at the time. Unionist economic hegemony since has been appalling.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on November 02, 2018, 02:16:16 PM
Quote from: Solo_run on November 02, 2018, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 02, 2018, 12:53:23 PM
Long gone is the stereotype of the South being an economic wasteland compared to glorious Ulster. The tables have completely turned. Middle of the road people in the north are looking towards Dublin as a prosperous outlook looking city.

If I was living back over there I would be heading to Dublin but would live up north and commute.

The job market in Dublin is much better than what Belfast has to offer.

I know loads of lads and ladies either side of the political divide working and living in Dublin so looking towards Dublin actually means living there and I don't think that is the shinners strategy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Solo_run on November 02, 2018, 02:30:17 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 02, 2018, 02:16:16 PM
Quote from: Solo_run on November 02, 2018, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 02, 2018, 12:53:23 PM
Long gone is the stereotype of the South being an economic wasteland compared to glorious Ulster. The tables have completely turned. Middle of the road people in the north are looking towards Dublin as a prosperous outlook looking city.

If I was living back over there I would be heading to Dublin but would live up north and commute.

The job market in Dublin is much better than what Belfast has to offer.

I know loads of lads and ladies either side of the political divide working and living in Dublin so looking towards Dublin actually means living there and I don't think that is the shinners strategy.

And to add to that there are probably quite a few from both sides leaving the North to go to uni somewhere else.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Walter Cronc on November 02, 2018, 02:40:30 PM
There may be plenty of jobs in Dublin but with the housing crisis, theres definitely a drop in the standard of living.

From having experience of working and living in London the grass isn't always greener. Yes you earn 30-40% more but you pay a mortgage for a room to rent so it balances out.

That's not to say Belfast/the north can't be improved greatly by a more sensible approach from the politicians.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ardtole on November 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
There are brickies from south Armagh commuting an hr at most each way to the north side of Dublin, with 1500 euro in their arse pocket on a Friday afternoon, maybe more. That would give you a very comfortable lifestyle in the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on November 02, 2018, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: ardtole on November 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
There are brickies from south Armagh commuting an hr at most each way to the north side of Dublin, with 1500 euro in their arse pocket on a Friday afternoon, maybe more. That would give you a very comfortable lifestyle in the north.
Does Paul Hearty still deliver milk to Dublin?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on November 02, 2018, 05:35:07 PM
I'm typing this from the Enterprise train.

Wee Jeffrey Donaldson was hiding away at the back of the carriage I'm in and got off in Newry.

Would love to know what he thinks of the smoothness of AI infrastructure Surely a brief experience of how much sense it all makes.

He boycotted the toilets - the signs are bi-lingual. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 02, 2018, 05:43:34 PM
Quote from: Rois on November 02, 2018, 05:35:07 PM
I'm typing this from the Enterprise train.

Wee Jeffrey Donaldson was hiding away at the back of the carriage I'm in and got off in Newry.

Would love to know what he thinks of the smoothness of AI infrastructure Surely a brief experience of how much sense it all makes.

He boycotted the toilets - the signs are bi-lingual.

Probably down at the passport office.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on November 02, 2018, 10:09:18 PM
Quote from: ardtole on November 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
There are brickies from south Armagh commuting an hr at most each way to the north side of Dublin, with 1500 euro in their arse pocket on a Friday afternoon, maybe more. That would give you a very comfortable lifestyle in the north.

Brickies taking home over €70k per annum so before tax over €100k gross a year??!!

Why would anybody go to college now when they can earn that sort of money. There are plenty of professional people earning nowhere near those sums.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on November 02, 2018, 10:16:41 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on November 02, 2018, 10:09:18 PM
Quote from: ardtole on November 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
There are brickies from south Armagh commuting an hr at most each way to the north side of Dublin, with 1500 euro in their arse pocket on a Friday afternoon, maybe more. That would give you a very comfortable lifestyle in the north.

Brickies taking home over €70k per annum so before tax over €100k gross a year??!!

Why would anybody go to college now when they can earn that sort of money. There are plenty of professional people earning nowhere near those sums.

Bricklaying is seasonal work and it's also heavy work. You'd want €1500 if not more, a week. In fact I don't think I'd do it for €1500 a week.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 02, 2018, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on November 02, 2018, 10:09:18 PM
Why would anybody go to college now when they can earn that sort of money. There are plenty of professional people earning nowhere near those sums.

Those professional people are probably not working in Dublin.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on November 02, 2018, 11:46:03 PM
Quote from: trailer on November 02, 2018, 10:16:41 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on November 02, 2018, 10:09:18 PM
Quote from: ardtole on November 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
There are brickies from south Armagh commuting an hr at most each way to the north side of Dublin, with 1500 euro in their arse pocket on a Friday afternoon, maybe more. That would give you a very comfortable lifestyle in the north.

Brickies taking home over €70k per annum so before tax over €100k gross a year??!!

Why would anybody go to college now when they can earn that sort of money. There are plenty of professional people earning nowhere near those sums.

Bricklaying is seasonal work and it's also heavy work. You'd want €1500 if not more, a week. In fact I don't think I'd do it for €1500 a week.

well its november now and brickies are still working so the off-season must be fairly short!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ardtole on November 03, 2018, 07:59:48 AM
Block laying is heavy work, brick laying wouldn't be. Most of the bigger sites would have inside work for the wet days. Some brickies getting 90 cent a brick so 1500 euro would be conservative enough.
Young lads seem to have no interest in getting a trade these days, they all want to go to college. 10 years down the line I wonder what tradesmen will be earning?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 03, 2018, 12:56:21 PM
Quote from: ardtole on November 03, 2018, 07:59:48 AM
Block laying is heavy work, brick laying wouldn't be. Most of the bigger sites would have inside work for the wet days. Some brickies getting 90 cent a brick so 1500 euro would be conservative enough.
Young lads seem to have no interest in getting a trade these days, they all want to go to college. 10 years down the line I wonder what tradesmen will be earning?

Routine bricklaying has to be a job for a robot. Then the craftsmen would be left with the unusual jobs for which they would get a premium.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on November 03, 2018, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on November 02, 2018, 11:46:03 PM
Quote from: trailer on November 02, 2018, 10:16:41 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on November 02, 2018, 10:09:18 PM
Quote from: ardtole on November 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
There are brickies from south Armagh commuting an hr at most each way to the north side of Dublin, with 1500 euro in their arse pocket on a Friday afternoon, maybe more. That would give you a very comfortable lifestyle in the north.

Brickies taking home over €70k per annum so before tax over €100k gross a year??!!

Why would anybody go to college now when they can earn that sort of money. There are plenty of professional people earning nowhere near those sums.

Bricklaying is seasonal work and it's also heavy work. You'd want €1500 if not more, a week. In fact I don't think I'd do it for €1500 a week.

well its november now and brickies are still working so the off-season must be fairly short!

Winter is coming.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on November 03, 2018, 02:21:32 PM
Plenty of days lost to bad weather surely, but to say Bricklaying is seasonal is just plain wrong.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 03, 2018, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: trailer on November 03, 2018, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on November 02, 2018, 11:46:03 PM
Quote from: trailer on November 02, 2018, 10:16:41 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on November 02, 2018, 10:09:18 PM
Quote from: ardtole on November 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
There are brickies from south Armagh commuting an hr at most each way to the north side of Dublin, with 1500 euro in their arse pocket on a Friday afternoon, maybe more. That would give you a very comfortable lifestyle in the north.

Brickies taking home over €70k per annum so before tax over €100k gross a year??!!

Why would anybody go to college now when they can earn that sort of money. There are plenty of professional people earning nowhere near those sums.

Bricklaying is seasonal work and it's also heavy work. You'd want €1500 if not more, a week. In fact I don't think I'd do it for €1500 a week.

well its november now and brickies are still working so the off-season must be fairly short!

Winter is coming, so it is!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 04, 2018, 06:51:30 AM
Very interesting article in the IT
First though an amuse bouche from the DUP

« A senior minister is at risk of being suspended from the House of Commons after Labour and the Democratic Unionist party were allowed to submit an emergency motion accusing the government of holding parliament in contempt for failing to publish the full Brexit legal advice. »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/north-down-on-brexit-the-dup-threatens-the-union-more-than-sinn-féin-1.3717598?mode=amp

The buffeting of Northern Ireland in the political storm between the pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party and UK prime minister Theresa May (whom the DUP keeps in power) over her Brexit plan is stirring unexpected conversations in these parts around nationality, constitutionality and what is right economically.
"The DUP is threatening the union more than anything Sinn Féin can do at the minute," says Hilary Warnock, a member of the liberal centrist Alliance Party who describes herself as a soft unionist. "I am tired of them speaking for us."

None of them support the DUP, preferring the local Independent unionist MP Sylvia Hermon. They all back May's deal and fear that a disorderly Brexit would spell economic catastrophe and bring forward the thorny question of a united Ireland. That, they feel, is a question better asked years, if not decades, from now.
"If the deal that is on the table got through, that would calm that question and people would think that we have got the best of both worlds here and that's okay," says Warnock. "If we leave with a no-deal, then I think yes, it is pushing the question of a united Ireland or not."
She feels "more Irish" than English or British since Brexit, she says.

A no-deal would be calamitous for Northern Ireland to the point where we would probably be better off within Europe within an all Ireland," says West.
While, he still favours maintaining the union of Northern Ireland with Britain, his mind is "not unchangeable" on the possibility of a united Ireland.
The "pain and suffering" from a no-deal Brexit, he says, could "shift the dial in terms of support for a united Ireland in some sectors" and that this could be enough to swing a majority for reunification.
Brexit has reintroduced identity politics into Northern Ireland two decades after the Belfast Agreement provided an acceptable fudge on the issue. Re-emerging orange-green fault lines mean a returned focus on identity and sovereignty trumps any pressing economic concerns, practical thinking or, for the DUP, even compromise. The party has returned to the "not an inch" mentality it doggedly stuck to in the past.
Ringland believes talk of a united Ireland is premature and that it must come from the ground up over time rather than from politicians. People are not as polarised as politics, he says.
"We have a wee bit of healing to do and a bit of real thinking about relationships in Northern Ireland to undo the damage that the conflict caused and across this island as well," he says.
Ringland, who sees himself as British-Irish and European, believes to push any sooner for reunification would create "a sense of triumphalism in Irish nationalism matched by the sense of loss in that British tradition" that would set "the project" back socially and economically for generations.

Jeremy Stewart, a north Down teacher and unionist who voted Leave, says if people were sold a united Ireland for long-term, pragmatic social and economic reasons, he thinks people would "start to consider and look at it more reasonably".

The problem is that the DUP don't have confidence in the Good Friday Agreement. That is my backstop. Until the people of Northern Ireland change their mind on that, I am confident in the union," he says.
Warnock believes Northern Ireland can work "as a good unit" and would work even better with May's Brexit deal, but feels the DUP must be "more open" and change its views on same-sex marriage and abortion.
"If they don't, then the numbers are going to come into play and there will be a united Ireland, and people won't be happy because you will end up with this horrendous group of unionists very unhappy," she says.

Barry believes the Troubles may have robbed some unionists of their ability to acknowledge their Irishness because of its association with Catholicism or armed-force republicanism.
"Since the Good Friday Agreement, there has been a re-embracing of those aspects of Irish identity, and it may be that the passports are symbolic of that," he says.

He believes that Northern Ireland's future is in blurring the lines around identity that Brexit has inadvertently redrawn.
"Belfast is as British as Finchley but it is not as English and it is as Irish as Cork but it is not as Irish-Irish," he says.

Ringland sees sport, along with the all-island structure and diverse make-up of Ireland's rugby team, something he has first-team experience of, as a template that can help unite people.
"That is where we need to be in Ireland pre-Brexit, not looking at Brexit but just looking at relationships," he said. "It is a feast of identities that we can have at different times."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 07, 2018, 12:33:56 AM
Poll in Times newspaper.

65% of NI support backstop.
If border poll with backstop than 50/50 (actually 48/48 4% don't know)
If Britain leaves the EU with no deal, 55 per cent of people would back a united Ireland, including 11 per cent of unionists, but 42 per cent said they would prefer to stay in the UK, while 3 per cent did not know.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 07, 2018, 08:08:12 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 07, 2018, 12:33:56 AM
Poll in Times newspaper.

65% of NI support backstop.
If border poll with backstop than 50/50 (actually 48/48 4% don't know)
If Britain leaves the EU with no deal, 55 per cent of people would back a united Ireland, including 11 per cent of unionists, but 42 per cent said they would prefer to stay in the UK, while 3 per cent did not know.

50/50 but it is very early days

NI could be like the rest of Ireland in 1918 when the Parliamentary party collapsed. Under conditions of extreme chaos political systems break down.

This is what the DUP want

https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/documents/s88112/Item%207%20-%20Brexit.pdf
"A no-deal Brexit could cause major disruption across Kent, with gridlock on the roads around Dover, rubbish not being collected, children unable to take exams and rubbish piling up on streets, a local council report has warned.
The registration service for weddings could also be affected and bodies could pile up in morgues because of traffic gridlock, Kent county council warned in an update on no-deal contingency planning. "

If you tolerate this Ballymena will be next
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on December 07, 2018, 08:20:19 AM
Is that not a normal day in Ballymena already??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 11, 2018, 05:55:24 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

Surely members within the DUP must wake up in the morning and wonder how they managed to score such an own goal by backing the Brexit horse. I'm very surprised none of them have broke rank and said that Brexit was a bad idea but like sheep they all towed the party line and had absolutely no idea where the whole process was taking them. I suspect that they never actually believed that Brexit would win to begin with but rarely can a party have self imploded in everything that it seems to do.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 11, 2018, 06:37:32 PM
When you want to be über Brits you can't see anything past the fleg.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 11, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 11, 2018, 06:37:32 PM
When you want to be über Brits you can't see anything past the fleg.

That's too European. What's über in Ulster-Scots?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 11, 2018, 07:36:51 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on December 11, 2018, 05:55:24 PM
Surely members within the DUP must wake up in the morning and wonder how they managed to score such an own goal by backing the Brexit horse. I'm very surprised none of them have broke rank and said that Brexit was a bad idea but like sheep they all towed the party line and had absolutely no idea where the whole process was taking them. I suspect that they never actually believed that Brexit would win to begin with but rarely can a party have self imploded in everything that it seems to do.

Some of them must be a bit concerned about the direction of travel, notably Simon Hamilton has never made a speech favouring Brexit.

Useful discussion here (https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/1123/1012997-brexit-and-dup/) by the excellent Tony Connolly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on December 11, 2018, 07:40:11 PM
Hamilton has been a naughty boy behind the scenes and is in the doghouse. It may be that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on December 11, 2018, 07:56:41 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 11, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 11, 2018, 06:37:32 PM
When you want to be über Brits you can't see anything past the fleg.

That's too European. What's über in Ulster-Scots?

staunch
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on December 11, 2018, 08:31:54 PM
Ironically by opposing a UI at every turn round and indeed opposing everything they now appear to have pushed the issue front and centre.
I was talking to a friend today. We'd both be of a similar political persuasion. We both would aspire to a UI but never really seen it as achievable certainly not in the near future. That's changed. We both see a unification vote being winnable in the next 5-10 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on December 11, 2018, 08:50:03 PM
Quote from: trailer on December 11, 2018, 08:31:54 PM
Ironically by opposing a UI at every turn round and indeed opposing everything they now appear to have pushed the issue front and centre.
I was talking to a friend today. We'd both be of a similar political persuasion. We both would aspire to a UI but never really seen it as achievable certainly not in the near future. That's changed. We both see a unification vote being winnable in the next 5-10 years.

All thanks in no small part to SF and the IRA. You can send your thanks to Slab and the boys anytime you want Trailer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on December 11, 2018, 09:03:23 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on December 11, 2018, 08:50:03 PM
Quote from: trailer on December 11, 2018, 08:31:54 PM
Ironically by opposing a UI at every turn round and indeed opposing everything they now appear to have pushed the issue front and centre.
I was talking to a friend today. We'd both be of a similar political persuasion. We both would aspire to a UI but never really seen it as achievable certainly not in the near future. That's changed. We both see a unification vote being winnable in the next 5-10 years.

All thanks in no small part to SF and the IRA. You can send your thanks to Slab and the boys anytime you want Trailer.

Slab the big Republican lol. You have to hand it to him, he played SF & IRA supporters like a fiddle.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on December 11, 2018, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: trailer on December 11, 2018, 09:03:23 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on December 11, 2018, 08:50:03 PM
Quote from: trailer on December 11, 2018, 08:31:54 PM
Ironically by opposing a UI at every turn round and indeed opposing everything they now appear to have pushed the issue front and centre.
I was talking to a friend today. We'd both be of a similar political persuasion. We both would aspire to a UI but never really seen it as achievable certainly not in the near future. That's changed. We both see a unification vote being winnable in the next 5-10 years.

All thanks in no small part to SF and the IRA. You can send your thanks to Slab and the boys anytime you want Trailer.

Slab the big Republican lol. You have to hand it to him, he played SF & IRA supporters like a fiddle.

''He played the establishment like a fiddle''
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on December 11, 2018, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2018, 07:40:11 PM
Hamilton has been a naughty boy behind the scenes and is in the doghouse. It may be that.
i heard he was a remainer and didn't think Brexit was a good idea
That's why he is sidelined on this
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 11, 2018, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: naka on December 11, 2018, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2018, 07:40:11 PM
Hamilton has been a naughty boy behind the scenes and is in the doghouse. It may be that.
i heard he was a remainer and didn't think Brexit was a good idea
That's why he is sidelined on this

He should stay well out of the way, the Brexit thing isn't exactly working out for the rest of them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 11, 2018, 11:32:53 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!

This is key and why it isn't desirable to get parachuted into a border poll by British chaos.
If things settle the get the planning going. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on December 11, 2018, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: naka on December 11, 2018, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2018, 07:40:11 PM
Hamilton has been a naughty boy behind the scenes and is in the doghouse. It may be that.
i heard he was a remainer and didn't think Brexit was a good idea
That's why he is sidelined on this

He has definitely been a naughty boy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on December 12, 2018, 08:00:03 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on December 11, 2018, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: naka on December 11, 2018, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2018, 07:40:11 PM
Hamilton has been a naughty boy behind the scenes and is in the doghouse. It may be that.
i heard he was a remainer and didn't think Brexit was a good idea
That's why he is sidelined on this

He has definitely been a naughty boy.
Spill the beans Harold 🤔
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on December 12, 2018, 08:35:42 AM
Being a naughty boy doesn't preclude you from being front and centre for the DUP - being a remainer does.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 12, 2018, 09:16:02 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on December 11, 2018, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: naka on December 11, 2018, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2018, 07:40:11 PM
Hamilton has been a naughty boy behind the scenes and is in the doghouse. It may be that.
i heard he was a remainer and didn't think Brexit was a good idea
That's why he is sidelined on this

He has definitely been a naughty boy.

Do tell as I thought Simon was about  the only normal one with no scandal
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 12, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Correct, I have not seen any plan from either SF or SDLP that would get me to vote for a UI, and I consider myself a republican, small r. I'd abstain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on December 12, 2018, 09:54:50 AM
Alleged extracurricular activity with an assistant to another assembly member, not a unionist MLA by the way. Heard this from several different sources.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 12, 2018, 10:00:25 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 12, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Correct, I have not seen any plan from either SF or SDLP that would get me to vote for a UI, and I consider myself a republican, small r. I'd abstain.

In the past a UI was going to upset the status quo and take a big plunge into the dark. Brexit kind of reverses things. A UI will be a lot closer to the status quo and brexit is now the plunge into the dark. A UI poll needs a lot of prep and planning but at the same time it offers an escape route from the brexit chaos
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 12, 2018, 10:05:21 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on December 12, 2018, 09:54:50 AM
Alleged extracurricular activity with an assistant to another assembly member, not a unionist MLA by the way. Heard this from several different sources.

Sure simpson was caught red handed and the rumours about IJP and ELP are rife so whats the problem? or is it because he did it with one of themmuns lol
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on December 12, 2018, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 12, 2018, 10:05:21 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on December 12, 2018, 09:54:50 AM
Alleged extracurricular activity with an assistant to another assembly member, not a unionist MLA by the way. Heard this from several different sources.

Sure simpson was caught red handed and the rumours about IJP and ELP are rife so whats the problem? or is it because he did it with one of themmuns lol

Depends if the assistant was male or female though...

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on December 12, 2018, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 12, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Correct, I have not seen any plan from either SF or SDLP that would get me to vote for a UI, and I consider myself a republican, small r. I'd abstain.

In any UI poll, both of those parties should take a backseat for the following reasons 1) them shouting  from rooftops would alienate the 15% - 20% of soft unionists needed to carry a vote - Mary Lou and co will not be able to help themselves however 2) neither party has really contributed to the factors that has made the Irish economy and culture attractive to Unionists, so it should not be their plan or vision that is on offer
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 12, 2018, 12:46:12 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 12, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Correct, I have not seen any plan from either SF or SDLP that would get me to vote for a UI, and I consider myself a republican, small r. I'd abstain.

Yes agreed. Those rabbiting on about a United ireland are as deluded as those unionists who want to hang onto the union no matter the consequences.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on December 12, 2018, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 12, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Correct, I have not seen any plan from either SF or SDLP that would get me to vote for a UI, and I consider myself a republican, small r. I'd abstain.
SDLP are not calling for a border poll at this time. I don't think it is a bad idea though for SF to keep mentioning it (despite knowing no one will grant it immediately) as it has the effect of making it sound inevitable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on December 12, 2018, 12:55:42 PM
think it is important for the shinners to keep a referendum on a united ireland at the forefront.
it means the it becomes part of the psyche and an established reality that a referendum will take place eventually.
then we are into the revolving dates around when the next one will happen.
lets lose the first one then start preparation for the second one.
its simply an extension of the long war.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on December 12, 2018, 12:58:48 PM
Quote from: weareros on December 12, 2018, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 12, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Correct, I have not seen any plan from either SF or SDLP that would get me to vote for a UI, and I consider myself a republican, small r. I'd abstain.

In any UI poll, both of those parties should take a backseat for the following reasons 1) them shouting  from rooftops would alienate the 15% - 20% of soft unionists needed to carry a vote - Mary Lou and co will not be able to help themselves however 2) neither party has really contributed to the factors that has made the Irish economy and culture attractive to Unionists, so it should not be their plan or vision that is on offer

The form of government in a UI needs to be put forward by the Irish Government sitting in the Dail, not the Shinners or whoever.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 12, 2018, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on December 12, 2018, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 12, 2018, 10:05:21 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on December 12, 2018, 09:54:50 AM
Alleged extracurricular activity with an assistant to another assembly member, not a unionist MLA by the way. Heard this from several different sources.

Sure simpson was caught red handed and the rumours about IJP and ELP are rife so whats the problem? or is it because he did it with one of themmuns lol

Depends if the assistant was male or female though...

Yes true for the DUP that would be an issue and I guess if its a bloke from the themmuns then it is double trouble for them. Jeez is there anyone left in the DUP not hiding anything.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 12, 2018, 01:36:39 PM
SF mentioning a UI at every farts end distracts from what they are elected to do in Stormont. It doesn't help either when they're trying to deal and PowerShare with unionists (not easy as we know).

But SF need Stormont up and running as if they are seen to be running things smoothly with unionists, it's easier to see a UI working as if both can work together at Stormont, why not Dublin?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on December 12, 2018, 03:23:31 PM
Quote from: weareros on December 12, 2018, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 12, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Correct, I have not seen any plan from either SF or SDLP that would get me to vote for a UI, and I consider myself a republican, small r. I'd abstain.

In any UI poll, both of those parties should take a backseat for the following reasons 1) them shouting  from rooftops would alienate the 15% - 20% of soft unionists needed to carry a vote - Mary Lou and co will not be able to help themselves however 2) neither party has really contributed to the factors that has made the Irish economy and culture attractive to Unionists, so it should not be their plan or vision that is on offer

I think that this is correct. The poll will be won on the votes of the Alliance/ soft unionists. Hard republicans and nationalists will vote for a UI in any case.

If we have learned the lessons of old Unionist triumphalism, it shouldn't be seen as a victory or defeat by either side but rather a coming together of people that will probably take a generation to normalise. I hope that there is not a rush to claim credit for such an eventuality when it does happen, because the reality is that the DUP will have done more to bring it about than either of the main nationalist parties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 12, 2018, 05:59:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on December 12, 2018, 03:23:31 PM
Quote from: weareros on December 12, 2018, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 12, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
Heard someone on the radio earlier saying that anyone talking about a border poll should learn the lessons of the Brexit poll - make a decent plan before asking people to vote!
Correct, I have not seen any plan from either SF or SDLP that would get me to vote for a UI, and I consider myself a republican, small r. I'd abstain.

In any UI poll, both of those parties should take a backseat for the following reasons 1) them shouting  from rooftops would alienate the 15% - 20% of soft unionists needed to carry a vote - Mary Lou and co will not be able to help themselves however 2) neither party has really contributed to the factors that has made the Irish economy and culture attractive to Unionists, so it should not be their plan or vision that is on offer

I think that this is correct. The poll will be won on the votes of the Alliance/ soft unionists. Hard republicans and nationalists will vote for a UI in any case.

If we have learned the lessons of old Unionist triumphalism, it shouldn't be seen as a victory or defeat by either side but rather a coming together of people that will probably take a generation to normalise. I hope that there is not a rush to claim credit for such an eventuality when it does happen, because the reality is that the DUP will have done more to bring it about than either of the main nationalist parties.

Really? Nearly 100 years of partition and this place is billions of light years away from being normal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Therealdonald on December 19, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

You're the scrooge of all things Republican and National michaelg. When it inevitably happens and it will (in your lifetime), can I have your home address to post a hard copy of this link so I can watch you eat it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:44:12 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on December 19, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

You're the scrooge of all things Republican and National michaelg. When it inevitably happens and it will (in your lifetime), can I have your home address to post a hard copy of this link so I can watch you eat it?
Whatever floats your boat, big lad!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 19, 2018, 07:09:01 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

Gudgin is hardly an independent, non-partisan voice. He's like the wee Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke (ooh err, missus). Basically ignores the impact of Brexit and the DUP's arousal of the nationalist electorate
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 08:39:56 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 19, 2018, 07:09:01 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

Gudgin is hardly an independent, non-partisan voice. He's like the wee Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke (ooh err, missus). Basically ignores the impact of Brexit and the DUP's arousal of the nationalist electorate
I would agree with you, even though we will need to wait see the impact of Brexit as it plays out.  He does still raise a few interesting points.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 19, 2018, 09:35:39 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 08:39:56 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 19, 2018, 07:09:01 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

Gudgin is hardly an independent, non-partisan voice. He's like the wee Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke (ooh err, missus). Basically ignores the impact of Brexit and the DUP's arousal of the nationalist electorate
I would agree with you, even though we will need to wait see the impact of Brexit as it plays out.  He does still raise a few interesting points.

What's the oul adage? There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: lenny on December 19, 2018, 09:39:18 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 19, 2018, 07:09:01 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

Gudgin is hardly an independent, non-partisan voice. He's like the wee Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke (ooh err, missus). Basically ignores the impact of Brexit and the DUP's arousal of the nationalist electorate

You talking about emma little pengelly again?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dougal Maguire on December 19, 2018, 11:10:24 PM
Has anyone ever wondered why Unionist politicians are so opposed to a border poll?  It's because the books have ben cooked. The official number crunching for the last 4 Census in NI was carried out by the same team of experts, all of whom had a unionist bias.  One of them was Jim Allaister's  sister. The headline results of the census before last, which was the one that was expected to show a significant closure in the Nationalist/Unionist gap but in the end this didn't materialise, were leaked to the Sunday Indo before they became public. This quelled any fear that the Nationalists were soon to become the majority. Having said that, the only thing that was likely to create the environment for a UI was some sort of seismic issue. Brexit is that issue.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 19, 2018, 11:33:12 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 19, 2018, 11:10:24 PM
Has anyone ever wondered why Unionist politicians are so opposed to a border poll?  It's because the books have ben cooked. The official number crunching for the last 4 Census in NI was carried out by the same team of experts, all of whom had a unionist bias.  One of them was Jim Allaister's  sister. The headline results of the census before last, which was the one that was expected to show a significant closure in the Nationalist/Unionist gap but in the end this didn't materialise, were leaked to the Sunday Indo before they became public. This quelled any fear that the Nationalists were soon to become the majority. Having said that, the only thing that was likely to create the environment for a UI was some sort of seismic issue. Brexit is that issue.

I very much doubt that the census has been cooked in any major way, although the presentation of the data may well have been selective. However, alarm bells did not ring among unionists because nationalist apathy meant falling turnouts and some drift to Alliance, so the number of nationalist seats did not rise quickly. Brexit has gone some  way to addressing this issue. 
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sE5FdcuJ2S4/WTx7sqvUJ8I/AAAAAAAAAko/Xh8hCI0sxb094z-4RHLYo9VgScxMtG6OACLcB/s1600/TO%2B%2525.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on December 20, 2018, 05:53:28 AM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html
Tbf michaelg the fact that this is being written when unionism should be gearing up for their big 100th anniversary bash is seismic.
A nationalist majority is imminent, you only have to be involved in business   over the last 30 years to see the demographic changes.
A United ireland may not arrive in my lifetime but a poll will occur in the next 20/30 years and then the race is run.
Nationalism has to thank the DUP for its help and assistance in pushing the idea of unification forward by at least a generation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 20, 2018, 08:09:38 AM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

He does make some interesting points.

There is a bitterness to his writing here though, that belies a lack of objectivity and which is only just barely veiled.

"While the south relies on its rip-off tax-haven status"


There are also lines such as that below, which is just a complete lie.

"the UK provides public spending in a way that is fully sustainable."   ;D ;D



4/10.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on December 20, 2018, 08:43:57 AM
Hes a sc**bag. Can't hide his bigotry. Trying to pass off any article saying UI is coming as being the premise of 'southern writers', and that article is full of thinly veiled racism. He pontificates about McWilliams loosely assuming catholicism = nationalism, but his article is based on protestantism = unionism.

And as for this...

Nor does the north's dependence on public spending indicate a weak private sector, as McWilliams simplistically suggests. Rather, it reflects the way the UK works.

The high birth-rates of the past created an excess of labour in Northern Ireland, which a sedately growing UK economic union was not designed to accommodate. Instead, public services (and hence jobs) were provided for a growing population.


I'm no economist, but I don't think you have to be to identify that this is utter bullshit. A high birth rate (given the article is drawing comparisons with the south, is he saying the birth rate in the north was higher than that of the south?) = more consumers; a boon to a healthy private sector. To listen to him you'd think the UK was socialist.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 20, 2018, 10:35:07 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on December 20, 2018, 08:43:57 AM
Hes a sc**bag. Can't hide his bigotry. Trying to pass off any article saying UI is coming as being the premise of 'southern writers', and that article is full of thinly veiled racism. He pontificates about McWilliams loosely assuming catholicism = nationalism, but his article is based on protestantism = unionism.

You get a lot of this, not every Catholic is nationalist and every person that isn't going to a Catholic church is definitely a unionist.
The reality is that there are hard core Unionists, a large wedge of people who aren't much committed to the union but who couldn't be bothered with constitutional change, and nationalists some of whom are atheists.
Wha Brexit does is make the continuation of NI problematic, which makes the middle bloc consider their options.

A follow up from a slightly biased source here
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/eilis-ohanlon-brexit-is-blamed-for-raising-the-unionist-bogey-of-irish-unity-but-what-if-leaving-the-eu-is-not-that-bad-or-whisper-it-what-if-its-actually-a-success-37642661.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 20, 2018, 11:13:45 AM
"We" need a majority of Scots to shed their inferiority complex and become an Independent State.
This will greatly assist the All Ireland process which had already been greatly assisted by DUPUDA's trying to reestablish 1 Party rule in 2016 and their pro Brexit madness.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: grounded on December 20, 2018, 09:36:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on December 20, 2018, 08:09:38 AM
Quote from: michaelg on December 19, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/dr-graham-gudgin-a-united-ireland-is-far-from-inevitable-and-here-is-why-37639295.html

He does make some interesting points.

There is a bitterness to his writing here though, that belies a lack of objectivity and which is only just barely veiled.

"While the south relies on its rip-off tax-haven status"


There are also lines such as that below, which is just a complete lie.

"the UK provides public spending in a way that is fully sustainable."   ;D ;D



4/10.


It's comfort reading for Unionism. In the 80's, 90's and even 00's unionist politicians rubbished the idea there would ever be a nationalist majority( this lunatic is still pushing that line).
    Slowly as the penny dropped the line was subtly changed to not all Catholics will vote for a UI even if they are in the majority.  ' they're too fond of getting better benefits, housing, free health service etc than they would get in the South'. As the economy in the Republic surpassed that of the North new caveats are now being thrown in to the mix i.e. There needs to be significantly more than a 50% majority in favour of a UI before a border poll can be called.
    Next no doubt will be ' there needs to be a majority in favour in both communities ' before a border poll can be passed.
    I would take with a large pinch of salt what any Unionist politician or commentator such as this guy thinks they know what the nationalist population will do or vote for. If they had such a good handle on nationalist thinking id suggest a lot more Catholics would be voting for them!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on December 20, 2018, 10:09:23 PM
Dido summed up unionist politicians thinking on Norn Iron:

I will go down with this ship
And I won't put my hands up and surrender
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 07, 2019, 05:30:10 PM
The Taigs are taking over the place
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/catholics-to-be-majority-of-workforce-in-northern-ireland-for-first-time-in-2020-new-figures-suggest-37790936.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on February 07, 2019, 05:56:22 PM
Brexit has been a game changer no doubt and border poll isn't silly talk anymore.  Economic case can be made for a UI supported by Brussels rather than London.  And politically anyone who believed Westminster gave a toot about the North has had their eyes opened.
But funny enough, if there's a hard Brexit, the South will really suffer greatly, and that would weaken the appeal for voting for change for some northerners.  Surely the DUP aren't that clever.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on February 07, 2019, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on February 07, 2019, 05:56:22 PM
Brexit has been a game changer no doubt and border poll isn't silly talk anymore.  Economic case can be made for a UI supported by Brussels rather than London.  And politically anyone who believed Westminster gave a toot about the North has had their eyes opened.
But funny enough, if there's a hard Brexit, the South will really suffer greatly, and that would weaken the appeal for voting for change for some northerners.  Surely the DUP aren't that clever.

I don't think anyone ever thought that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 07, 2019, 06:42:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2019, 05:30:10 PM
The Taigs are taking over the place
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/catholics-to-be-majority-of-workforce-in-northern-ireland-for-first-time-in-2020-new-figures-suggest-37790936.html

But but but "Taigs" don't work.......
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 07, 2019, 06:45:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on February 07, 2019, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on February 07, 2019, 05:56:22 PM
Brexit has been a game changer no doubt and border poll isn't silly talk anymore.  Economic case can be made for a UI supported by Brussels rather than London.  And politically anyone who believed Westminster gave a toot about the North has had their eyes opened.
But funny enough, if there's a hard Brexit, the South will really suffer greatly, and that would weaken the appeal for voting for change for some northerners.  Surely the DUP aren't that clever.

I don't think anyone ever thought that.

I think a lot of people thought that Westminster was willing to keep the peace because it would cause them problems if they did not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on February 07, 2019, 08:33:26 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on February 07, 2019, 05:56:22 PM
  Economic case can be made for a UI supported by Brussels rather than London.

Who has made this case? Who in the EU or the 26 nations has said its a runner given each has a veto?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 07, 2019, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2019, 08:33:26 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on February 07, 2019, 05:56:22 PM
  Economic case can be made for a UI supported by Brussels rather than London.

Who has made this case? Who in the EU or the 26 nations has said its a runner given each has a veto?

The EU should not have to mop up after the British and many countries would see it that way. However, some capital funding would be likely be available for roads, linking the electricity grid and that kind of thing. Ireland's contribution to the EU would fall as the country would be poorer and that would free up some funds.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on March 17, 2019, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

You are offended by a banner saying England out of Ireland?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2019, 10:44:01 AM
As England doesn't exist as a political entity.....
Is it one of their International Sports teams using an Irish Stadium she's on about or what?
Keep them out of Páirc Uí Chaoimh I say!!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 17, 2019, 11:18:29 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

Agree. It's hardly the way to go about winning a border poll.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 17, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

Yea...just like that. I can just imagine Michelle O'Neill asking Arlene to open up Stormont again.  ::)

Working with the DUP will never work.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Solo_run on March 17, 2019, 12:14:43 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

It was the DUPs fault for Stormont failing. The DUP have been at the centre of multiple scandals over the last number of years and SF are sick of it and rightly so. Nothing changes, they get away with everything and are never held accountable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 12:17:20 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

This was tried before - that's why the Shinners pulled out.  DUP still have the notion that it's 1960. They had their chance to share power on an equal basis.  Unionists showed, as in the 20's, 60's and 70's etc. etc. that they are not able to share power with nationalists.

No return to Stomont - they had their chance and blew it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2019, 12:38:33 PM
Agree with the last sentence.
Mind you it was a silly action on behalf of Marylou.
But I suppose when you have nothing to offer but slogans sure what's another banner?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 01:03:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2019, 12:38:33 PM
Agree with the last sentence.
Mind you it was a silly action on behalf of Marylou.
But I suppose when you have nothing to offer but slogans sure what's another banner?

I was replying to another post - like a few others were re: getting back to Stormont!  You even agree with me...lol.

Imagine Mary Lou, at a St. Patrick's Day parade in America, stating a political ideal to break the link with England.

Thanks for your advice. I'll take it on board...not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 01:06:52 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 17, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

Yea...just like that. I can just imagine Michelle O'Neill asking Arlene to open up Stormont again.  ::)

Working with the DUP will never work.

Then neither will a united Ireland. If you think the people in the south are going to vote for a situation similar to before the good Friday agreement but with the bombs down here rather than the UK you're delusional. You won't see a united Ireland without nationalists being the bigger man.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on March 17, 2019, 01:07:57 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 12:17:20 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

This was tried before - that's why the Shinners pulled out.  DUP still have the notion that it's 1960. They had their chance to share power on an equal basis.  Unionists showed, as in the 20's, 60's and 70's etc. etc. that they are not able to share power with nationalists.

No return to Stomont - they had their chance and blew it.

This
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 01:12:01 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 17, 2019, 01:07:57 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 12:17:20 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

This was tried before - that's why the Shinners pulled out.  DUP still have the notion that it's 1960. They had their chance to share power on an equal basis.  Unionists showed, as in the 20's, 60's and 70's etc. etc. that they are not able to share power with nationalists.

No return to Stomont - they had their chance and blew it.

This

You do realise the unionists couldn't give a Damn about storming. They're happy with direct English rule. Tell them to stick it if ya want but it only hurts the nationalists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2019, 01:51:16 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 01:12:01 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 17, 2019, 01:07:57 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 12:17:20 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

This was tried before - that's why the Shinners pulled out.  DUP still have the notion that it's 1960. They had their chance to share power on an equal basis.  Unionists showed, as in the 20's, 60's and 70's etc. etc. that they are not able to share power with nationalists.

No return to Stomont - they had their chance and blew it.

This

You do realise the unionists couldn't give a Damn about storming. They're happy with direct English rule. Tell them to stick it if ya want but it only hurts the nationalists.
Explain to me how Stormont is an improvement on Direct Rule when the DUP have a veto on anything they don't like? How will handing the control back to The DUP help nationalists? As far as the DUP are concerned it wasn't power sharing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2019, 01:51:16 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 01:12:01 PM
Quote from: red hander on March 17, 2019, 01:07:57 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 12:17:20 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

This was tried before - that's why the Shinners pulled out.  DUP still have the notion that it's 1960. They had their chance to share power on an equal basis.  Unionists showed, as in the 20's, 60's and 70's etc. etc. that they are not able to share power with nationalists.

No return to Stomont - they had their chance and blew it.

This

You do realise the unionists couldn't give a Damn about storming. They're happy with direct English rule. Tell them to stick it if ya want but it only hurts the nationalists.
Explain to me how Stormont is an improvement on Direct Rule when the DUP have a veto on anything they don't like? How will handing the control back to The DUP help nationalists? As far as the DUP are concerned it wasn't power sharing.

As do SF but at least it's a step toward the right direction similar to the country looking for home rule back in the day. They understood that they were never going to get complete autonomy but it was a step in the right direction.SF seem to think it's realistic to expect the unionists to and Brits just to hand the whole lot back.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 02:31:07 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 17, 2019, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

You are offended by a banner saying England out of Ireland?

No need for anybody to be offended. If you zoom in on the small print on the banner you can read SF's commitment to the principle of consent, a shared future and anti racism and a clarification that England was not being used as a synonym for Britain and any notion of Britishness in NI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

A good starting point would be for SF to call out to their electorate that in a UI that the NI entity and Stormont would continue to exist
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 02:36:02 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 17, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

Yea...just like that. I can just imagine Michelle O'Neill asking Arlene to open up Stormont again.  ::)

Working with the DUP will never work.

Eventually people will wise up to voting for these 2 parties
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 02:43:57 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.

A good starting point would be for SF to call out to their electorate that in a UI that the NI entity and Stormont would continue to exist

Exactly, if there is ever to be movement it has to come from the nationalist side. The unionists have no interest in moving as they already have what they want. SF can bleat on about ideals but they will never achieve a UI with the current methods
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

Was just about to post the same. If the DUP need SF to exist then surely the most nationalistic thing that SF could ever do is disappear. Then the chief protagonists for animosity would be out of the picture.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on March 17, 2019, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 17, 2019, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

You are offended by a banner saying England out of Ireland?

It's stupid and a gift to the opponents of a UI.  Don't be telling me otherwise or wriggling away from the obvious.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on March 17, 2019, 06:40:17 PM
Sinn Fein in wanting England out of Ireland shocker!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
Sinn Féin signed up to the GFA which as we and they know says "England will get out of Ireland" when a majority in the 6 Cos vote for that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

That's very naive.  There's council elections in May.  Both parties will dominate without doubt.

And that's the way elections will be from now on in the north of Ireland - a headcount.  Anybody who thinks it will be any different is very naive.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

That's very naive.  There's council elections in May.  Both parties will dominate without doubt.

And that's the way elections will be from now on in the north of Ireland - a headcount.  Anybody who thinks it will be any different is very naive.

If SF continue with the political track they have taken up to now there will never be a united ireland. If they think any different theyre the ones who are naive. They are pushing the prospect further and further away.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 07:16:19 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

That's very naive.  There's council elections in May.  Both parties will dominate without doubt.

And that's the way elections will be from now on in the north of Ireland - a headcount.  Anybody who thinks it will be any different is very naive.

If I was talking about the upcoming LGE then that would be naive but I did say "eventually "

SF and DUP are each fraudulent parties that combine dishonesty with their electorate,  perpetuation of the old ways, cowardice in the face of difficult decisions, faux outrage and a wee bit too much of incompetence. I don't like the sectarian head count but the idea that you need to tolerate these 2 parties in order to facilitate a sectarian headcount will run out of steam. To assume otherwise will in the long term be exposed as the ultimate naivety
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 07:35:39 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

That's very naive.  There's council elections in May.  Both parties will dominate without doubt.

And that's the way elections will be from now on in the north of Ireland - a headcount.  Anybody who thinks it will be any different is very naive.

If SF continue with the political track they have taken up to now there will never be a united ireland. If they think any different theyre the ones who are naive. They are pushing the prospect further and further away.

Possibly but the point I'm making is people are saying "why don't people vote for other parties?"  DUP/SF is how the people vote.  They have a choice but, whether we like it or not, that's who they vote for.

As I alluded to earlier - from now on it's a straight headcount.  This is clear to be seen the way the SDLP//UUP have been cast aside this past 5 years.

It's the 'Big Two' from now on.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 07:41:29 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 07:35:39 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

That's very naive.  There's council elections in May.  Both parties will dominate without doubt.

And that's the way elections will be from now on in the north of Ireland - a headcount.  Anybody who thinks it will be any different is very naive.

If SF continue with the political track they have taken up to now there will never be a united ireland. If they think any different theyre the ones who are naive. They are pushing the prospect further and further away.

Possibly but the point I'm making is people are saying "why don't people vote for other parties?"  DUP/SF is how the people vote.  They have a choice but, whether we like it or not, that's who they vote for.

As I alluded to earlier - from now on it's a straight headcount.  This is clear to be seen the way the SDLP//UUP have been cast aside this past 5 years.

It's the 'Big Two' from now on.

Today- Yes

"From now on" - naivety

Not saying it will be easy but the fraud will be sussed out
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 09:25:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 07:41:29 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 07:35:39 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

That's very naive.  There's council elections in May.  Both parties will dominate without doubt.

And that's the way elections will be from now on in the north of Ireland - a headcount.  Anybody who thinks it will be any different is very naive.

If SF continue with the political track they have taken up to now there will never be a united ireland. If they think any different theyre the ones who are naive. They are pushing the prospect further and further away.

Possibly but the point I'm making is people are saying "why don't people vote for other parties?"  DUP/SF is how the people vote.  They have a choice but, whether we like it or not, that's who they vote for.

As I alluded to earlier - from now on it's a straight headcount.  This is clear to be seen the way the SDLP//UUP have been cast aside this past 5 years.

It's the 'Big Two' from now on.

Today- Yes

"From now on" - naivety

Not saying it will be easy but the fraud will be sussed out

Ok, be more specific - 1 year, 3 year or 5 years etc.?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 10:13:18 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 09:25:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 07:41:29 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 07:35:39 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

That's very naive.  There's council elections in May.  Both parties will dominate without doubt.

And that's the way elections will be from now on in the north of Ireland - a headcount.  Anybody who thinks it will be any different is very naive.

If SF continue with the political track they have taken up to now there will never be a united ireland. If they think any different theyre the ones who are naive. They are pushing the prospect further and further away.

Possibly but the point I'm making is people are saying "why don't people vote for other parties?"  DUP/SF is how the people vote.  They have a choice but, whether we like it or not, that's who they vote for.

As I alluded to earlier - from now on it's a straight headcount.  This is clear to be seen the way the SDLP//UUP have been cast aside this past 5 years.

It's the 'Big Two' from now on.

Today- Yes

"From now on" - naivety

Not saying it will be easy but the fraud will be sussed out

Ok, be more specific - 1 year, 3 year or 5 years etc.?

Genuinely hard to be specific. We know that DUP and SF are well oiled cynical machines. They aren't going to roll over. But if you take the long view the SF and DUP fraud won't be perpetuated forever. The UI talk now and subsequent debate it will trigger will expose the SF fraud soon enough.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on March 17, 2019, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 10:13:18 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 09:25:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 07:41:29 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 07:35:39 PM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 17, 2019, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 17, 2019, 02:49:11 PM
LCohen, SF and DUP can't exist without the other. They feed off each other like two leeches. We're stuck with them.

When one side spouts some shite about the other side, it riles people up to vote for "their own" again, even if they know they'll do feck all when voted in. People feel the only way to stick two fingers up at the other is to vote for their own side.

So let's get rid of both.

NI is here to stay. Whether that is part of UK or UI it's here to stay. Power sharing is here to stay. People will eventually work these 2 fraudulent parties out

That's very naive.  There's council elections in May.  Both parties will dominate without doubt.

And that's the way elections will be from now on in the north of Ireland - a headcount.  Anybody who thinks it will be any different is very naive.

If SF continue with the political track they have taken up to now there will never be a united ireland. If they think any different theyre the ones who are naive. They are pushing the prospect further and further away.

Possibly but the point I'm making is people are saying "why don't people vote for other parties?"  DUP/SF is how the people vote.  They have a choice but, whether we like it or not, that's who they vote for.

As I alluded to earlier - from now on it's a straight headcount.  This is clear to be seen the way the SDLP//UUP have been cast aside this past 5 years.

It's the 'Big Two' from now on.

Today- Yes

"From now on" - naivety

Not saying it will be easy but the fraud will be sussed out

Ok, be more specific - 1 year, 3 year or 5 years etc.?

Genuinely hard to be specific. We know that DUP and SF are well oiled cynical machines. They aren't going to roll over. But if you take the long view the SF and DUP fraud won't be perpetuated forever. The UI talk now and subsequent debate it will trigger will expose the SF fraud soon enough.

People waking up to Sinn Fein. It'll start slow, but change is coming. People want proper representation and not frauds lining their pockets.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.
Away and boil your head. England/ Brits out of Ireland is the fundamental principal of SF what do you expect.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.
If some wee UDA sc**bag is going to plant bombs round Dublin, Sinn Fein playing nice with the DUP isn't going to stop it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on March 18, 2019, 10:26:52 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.
Away and boil your head. England/ Brits out of Ireland is the fundamental principal of SF what do you expect.

Equality? Respect? Integrity?

If a United Ireland is to be achieved, it is now abundantly clear that Sinn Fein must be sidelined. They're simply unable to show any sensible leadership on issue.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on March 18, 2019, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: trailer on March 18, 2019, 10:26:52 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.
Away and boil your head. England/ Brits out of Ireland is the fundamental principal of SF what do you expect.

Equality? Respect? Integrity?

If a United Ireland is to be achieved, it is now abundantly clear that Sinn Fein must be sidelined. They're simply unable to show any sensible leadership on issue.

Here bass, its abundantly clear Sinn Fein have a mandate.
They are the only party pursuing the issue.
Your living in a haze of unicorn farts try to get out once in a while.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Lar Naparka on March 18, 2019, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
Sinn Féin signed up to the GFA which as we and they know says "England will get out of Ireland" when a majority in the 6 Cos vote for that.
[/b]
Yah, but  there's a wee sting in that particular tail.  ;D

For a UI, a majority of people in the whole island must be in favour first.  That's what the GFA says anyway. But a one vote majority in a referendum in the north doesn't mean the nationalists in the north are in the clear. There would have to be a majority of at least two in a referendum in the south, held at the same time, before you can talk about UI.
So, what happens if a UI vote is carried in the north but is defeated in the south by a bigger margin?
I have no idea what would happen next because such a possibility isn't covered by the GFA. (At least, I can't spot it if it is there.)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on March 18, 2019, 11:04:30 AM
Quote from: tiempo on March 18, 2019, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: trailer on March 18, 2019, 10:26:52 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.
Away and boil your head. England/ Brits out of Ireland is the fundamental principal of SF what do you expect.

Equality? Respect? Integrity?

If a United Ireland is to be achieved, it is now abundantly clear that Sinn Fein must be sidelined. They're simply unable to show any sensible leadership on issue.

Here bass, its abundantly clear Sinn Fein have a mandate.
They are the only party pursuing the issue.
Your living in a haze of unicorn farts try to get out once in a while.

Here bass, its abundantly clear Sinn Fein have a mandate. Here bass?
They are the only party pursuing the issue. Lies
Your living in a haze of unicorn farts try to get out once in a while. *You're
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on March 18, 2019, 11:41:50 AM
If there is a hard-Brexit... and there is a border poll....

If we came out of that border poll without a United Ireland, the primary reason would be the continued stupidity of Sinn Fein.

What does that banner achieve apart from pissing people off? Is Mary Lou that insecure about her republicanism she actually feels better for walking along behind it?


Ironically, while the morons in the DUP are doing everything in their power to make a United Ireland more likely, their equivalents in Sinn Fein are doing their bit to continue British rule in Ireland. You couldn't make it up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on March 18, 2019, 12:30:40 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 12:16:03 PM
I don't follow the logic.
It's as if Nationalists should pretend they don't want Irish unity in order to trick Unionists into it.

How about them making arguments as to how much better off we'd all be in a UI rather than "Brits out"?

Or what about laying out frameworks for protecting unionist heritage and culture in a UI? [for example, Orangemen can and do parade quite peacefully in the South, do you think the average Joe in East Belfast knows that?]


By going down the road of "get the Brits out" rather than "we want to be in a UI" - they are (at least perceived as, possibly actually are) seeking to exclude and expel those of a unionist persuasion and not bring them with us into a brighter future within a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on March 18, 2019, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 12:16:03 PMIf people are pissed off about a banner supporting Irish unity

I'm pissed off about the crass of "get the English out".

A new inclusive United Ireland? (except if you are English in which case f**k off?)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on March 18, 2019, 12:36:14 PM
Massive own goal by SF in marching behind that banner. The DUP have embarrassed themselves in the last few years and have done more to advance the cause of Irish unity than SF have ever managed.

And then you get Mary Lou making a very poor judgement call that does nothing to help the cause, sometimes you have to wonder about the intelligence of these politicians.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on March 18, 2019, 12:43:34 PM
The fact that it must be explained to a lot of people what is wrong shows that we've a long way to go.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on March 18, 2019, 12:45:53 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 18, 2019, 12:36:14 PM
Massive own goal by SF in marching behind that banner. The DUP have embarrassed themselves in the last few years and have done more to advance the cause of Irish unity than SF have ever managed.

And then you get Mary Lou making a very poor judgement call that does nothing to help the cause, sometimes you have to wonder about the intelligence of these politicians.

The leadership of Sinn Fein has been appointed because they do what they're told not because they're intelligent.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 12:58:50 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.
Away and boil your head. England/ Brits out of Ireland is the fundamental principal of SF what do you expect.

It's the fundamental principle of all unionist parties that they should not surrender to the IRA. I think that if a party leader chose to march behind that banner they would be rightly condemned. Mary Lou is no better
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.
If some wee UDA sc**bag is going to plant bombs round Dublin, Sinn Fein playing nice with the DUP isn't going to stop it.

It's funny that when the wee IRA scumbags stopped planting bombs around Belfast, London etc etc (for it was a lengthy list) the unionism starting playing nice
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 01:05:42 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 12:16:03 PM
I don't follow the logic.
It's as if Nationalists should pretend they don't want Irish unity in order to trick Unionists into it.
Sinn Fein's very being is founded on the removal of England from Ireland. Do you honestly believe that that will be completely overlooked by Unionists if Sinn Fein just keep their head down? Do you honestly believe that Sinn Fein standing behind that banner is an obstacle to Irish unity? If people are pissed off about a banner supporting Irish unity, those same people are hardly likely to back Irish unity themselves.

Surely the type of Ireland that is being created will influence whether people aspire to be in it?

Mary Lou's Ireland doesn't look that attractive
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 18, 2019, 01:30:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.
If some wee UDA sc**bag is going to plant bombs round Dublin, Sinn Fein playing nice with the DUP isn't going to stop it.

It's funny that when the wee IRA scumbags stopped planting bombs around Belfast, London etc etc (for it was a lengthy list) the unionism starting playing nice

Tony Blair had to force Unionists to play nice, but that didn't last long and they've reverted to type.


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on March 18, 2019, 01:34:30 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 12:16:03 PM
I don't follow the logic.
It's as if Nationalists should pretend they don't want Irish unity in order to trick Unionists into it.
Sinn Fein's very being is founded on the removal of England from Ireland. Do you honestly believe that that will be completely overlooked by Unionists if Sinn Fein just keep their head down? Do you honestly believe that Sinn Fein standing behind that banner is an obstacle to Irish unity? If people are pissed off about a banner supporting Irish unity, those same people are hardly likely to back Irish unity themselves.

Totally agree HS.  It's like the 60's and 70's - nationalists just keep your head down, hide all symbols of Irishness and don't rock the boat and unionists might give you a few crumbs from the table.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on March 18, 2019, 01:45:20 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 12:42:50 PM
You are making stuff up to get offended at.

I'm not offended by it - I'm f**ked off at their (continued) stupidity.


People that already don't trust SF or hold them in high regard are going to see what in that? Your talk of the English establishment? Or that SF want an Ireland where only their people are welcome?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on March 18, 2019, 01:46:16 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
They stand in front of Ulster is British posters all the time and there is never a word about it.
Wise up ffs.

... and how many nationalists have they had to convince their future would be better off in voting for them in a border poll?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on March 18, 2019, 01:46:51 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 01:45:42 PM
An Ireland with England out of it isn't attractive? I'm not sure what your version of Irish unity looks like but England being out of it would be a prerequisite for mine thank you very much.

You are either being deliberately thick... or are actually thick.

Not sure which.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 02:31:32 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 18, 2019, 01:30:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.
If some wee UDA sc**bag is going to plant bombs round Dublin, Sinn Fein playing nice with the DUP isn't going to stop it.

It's funny that when the wee IRA scumbags stopped planting bombs around Belfast, London etc etc (for it was a lengthy list) the unionism starting playing nice

Tony Blair had to force Unionists to play nice, but that didn't last long and they've reverted to type.

I don't think you could reasonably argue that a majority of unionists don't buy into power Sharing
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on March 18, 2019, 01:34:30 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 12:16:03 PM
I don't follow the logic.
It's as if Nationalists should pretend they don't want Irish unity in order to trick Unionists into it.
Sinn Fein's very being is founded on the removal of England from Ireland. Do you honestly believe that that will be completely overlooked by Unionists if Sinn Fein just keep their head down? Do you honestly believe that Sinn Fein standing behind that banner is an obstacle to Irish unity? If people are pissed off about a banner supporting Irish unity, those same people are hardly likely to back Irish unity themselves.

Totally agree HS.  It's like the 60's and 70's - nationalists just keep your head down, hide all symbols of Irishness and don't rock the boat and unionists might give you a few crumbs from the table.

You hardly need trace elements of intelligence to work out that the objection to Mary Lou walking behind that banner was that it was a symbol of Irishness and any symbol of irishness is objectionable
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 02:36:58 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 12:58:50 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.
Away and boil your head. England/ Brits out of Ireland is the fundamental principal of SF what do you expect.

It's the fundamental principle of all unionist parties that they should not surrender to the IRA. I think that if a party leader chose to march behind that banner they would be rightly condemned. Mary Lou is no better
They stand in front of Ulster is British posters all the time and there is never a word about it.
Wise up ffs.

Such juvenile posting. All symbols of unionism cannot be equated to No Surrender and all symbols of irishness cannot be equated to England Out. As I say trace elements.....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 02:39:06 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 01:45:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 01:05:42 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 12:16:03 PM
I don't follow the logic.
It's as if Nationalists should pretend they don't want Irish unity in order to trick Unionists into it.
Sinn Fein's very being is founded on the removal of England from Ireland. Do you honestly believe that that will be completely overlooked by Unionists if Sinn Fein just keep their head down? Do you honestly believe that Sinn Fein standing behind that banner is an obstacle to Irish unity? If people are pissed off about a banner supporting Irish unity, those same people are hardly likely to back Irish unity themselves.

Surely the type of Ireland that is being created will influence whether people aspire to be in it?

Mary Lou's Ireland doesn't look that attractive
An Ireland with England out of it isn't attractive? I'm not sure what your version of Irish unity looks like but England being out of it would be a prerequisite for mine thank you very much.

For a start you do realise that removing the British say in NI would require Brish approval? Or have you bought into the SF fraud??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 18, 2019, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 02:01:23 PM
There is nobody, absolutely nobody who is under the illusion that Sinn Fein want anything other than an Ireland totally exclusive to England. That is all the banner said. It didn't say English people aren't allowed in Ireland. It didn't say Unionists will be treated poorly. It didn't say that anyone who identifies as British needs to leave.

Sinn Fein stood behind a banner that carries the message that underpins the entire party's fundamental objective. If the party must hush up their fundamental objective for fear that they may offend someone who misapplys it, then they don't have a fundamental objective.
"England" isn't in Ireland.
The British or UK Government has 6 Irish Counties under their Jurisdiction under the terms of the GFA.
That won't change till a majority of voters in the 6 Cos decide otherwise ( and us in thev26 after them)
So Marylou should have a banner saying "Border poll now".
Or "United Ireland now"
Nothing like an oul slogan when you have nothing to offer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 02:46:03 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2019, 02:01:23 PM
There is nobody, absolutely nobody who is under the illusion that Sinn Fein want anything other than an Ireland totally exclusive to England. That is all the banner said. It didn't say English people aren't allowed in Ireland. It didn't say Unionists will be treated poorly. It didn't say that anyone who identifies as British needs to leave.

Sinn Fein stood behind a banner that carries the message that underpins the entire party's fundamental objective. If the party must hush up their fundamental objective for fear that they may offend someone who misapplys it, then they don't have a fundamental objective.

Please tell you have read the GFA??

Surely you know that that which you describe as SF's fundamental objective isn't actually available??

If SF secure and win a UI referendum in NI and then another in RoI then NI continues to exist, stormont continues to exist, Britain remains a co guarantor of GFA.

In principle NI could vote a further future date to leave UI and the GFA would continue to provide for that. Not saying that those provisions would be actually called upon
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 18, 2019, 02:52:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 02:46:03 PM
Please tell you have read the GFA??

Surely you know that that which you describe as SF's fundamental objective isn't actually available??

If SF secure and win a UI referendum in NI and then another in RoI then NI continues to exist, stormont continues to exist, Britain remains a co guarantor of GFA.

In principle NI could vote a further future date to leave UI and the GFA would continue to provide for that. Not saying that those provisions would be actually called upon

Where does it say that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 03:13:00 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2019, 02:52:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 02:46:03 PM
Please tell you have read the GFA??

Surely you know that that which you describe as SF's fundamental objective isn't actually available??

If SF secure and win a UI referendum in NI and then another in RoI then NI continues to exist, stormont continues to exist, Britain remains a co guarantor of GFA.

In principle NI could vote a further future date to leave UI and the GFA would continue to provide for that. Not saying that those provisions would be actually called upon

Where does it say that?


You need to look at what it doesn't say e.g when does the GFA end? Look at when any international treaty comes to an end - only with the express agreement of both parties. This one is designed to last forever.

In its simplest form in a UI scenario the governments of GB and RoI exchange roles as responsibilities switch. Everything else stays the same unless a new treaty was backed by both governments and it was passed by a majority of both communities in NI. That is what we signed up to - not a staging post to a UI but Sunningdale for slow learners.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 18, 2019, 03:22:22 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 02:31:32 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 18, 2019, 01:30:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 18, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: Raginbull on March 17, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.

The Shinners have played this entire brexit thing horribly from the start. Constantly bleating on about a border poll has resulted in the extreme unionists coming to the fore again and digging their heels in. Its quite conceivable that if the british leave the EU that scotland will leave the UK and NI would follow. Mary Lou doesn't seem to realise or care that even though she may get a majority in the North for a UI, if there is even a possible sniff of hassle for the south she won't get it here. People in the south are not going to suck up the initial financial hit and have the UDA planting bombs in Dublin. The best thing that SF could do is get the assembly open again, do their utmost to work with the unionists, remove as much as possible the hatred between the two and wait for the general population to get pissed off importing goods from, or going through customs checks in france, germany, spain etc and decide the benefits of the EU outweigh any of being in the UK.
If some wee UDA sc**bag is going to plant bombs round Dublin, Sinn Fein playing nice with the DUP isn't going to stop it.

It's funny that when the wee IRA scumbags stopped planting bombs around Belfast, London etc etc (for it was a lengthy list) the unionism starting playing nice

Tony Blair had to force Unionists to play nice, but that didn't last long and they've reverted to type.

I don't think you could reasonably argue that a majority of unionists don't buy into power Sharing

We've never had proper power sharing in Stormont to actually know.

Current "power sharing" or the pre 2016 version was anything but. It was an exercise in bolloxology and one upmanship between the two main parties. It was when the DUP's levels of pettiness (Líofa grant) and arrogance (RHI) went to a totally new level that McGuinness had to pull the plug on the sham.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on March 18, 2019, 06:29:24 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2019, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Mary Lou marching behind an 'England get out of Ireland' banner.  That's embarrassing.  All SF have to do is keep their mouths shut and let the DUP get the bigots prize, but they always manage something offensive.
Away and boil your head. England/ Brits out of Ireland is the fundamental principal of SF what do you expect.
Oh dear god, read again what I said and see if you can work out this time what my simple point is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on March 18, 2019, 11:20:42 PM
Vol Alan Partridge!
https://twitter.com/gibbogibby1/status/1107765353889910784?s=21
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 19, 2019, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 18, 2019, 11:35:00 PM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on March 18, 2019, 11:20:42 PM
Vol Alan Partridge!
https://twitter.com/gibbogibby1/status/1107765353889910784?s=21 (https://twitter.com/gibbogibby1/status/1107765353889910784?s=21)

Not the first time Steve Coogan has played to role of an Irish Republican.

https://youtu.be/MR6jGJ1lq2U

Bloody hell, Stephen Nolan is going to be devoting another show on this after Michael Conlon entering the ring to the tune of Celtic Symphony..........

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 01:44:02 PM
More Taigs
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-catholic-school-population-surges-to-record-high-38063956.html

there were 175,649 Catholic pupils in Northern Ireland's nursery, primary, secondary, grammar and special schools.
This accounts for almost 50.7% of all enrollments, with the amount of Catholics pupils at an all-time high.
In comparison, there were 114,314 Protestant pupils, 33% of the total, while 56,408 were designated as 'other'.


Now, of course, if you are over on Sluggerotoole some will claim that
- a lot of a Catholics are Poles etc
- a lot of Catholics don;t want a United Ireland
- all the others are unionists.

But since Brexit, the Polish people want a United Ireland too. The others may be mostly from a Protestant background but there are several % of greens in there too and some of the others are Orthodox Romanians or whatever and since Brexit these may well favour a UI also.

NI's days are numbered.





Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 01, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 01:44:02 PM
More Taigs
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-catholic-school-population-surges-to-record-high-38063956.html

there were 175,649 Catholic pupils in Northern Ireland's nursery, primary, secondary, grammar and special schools.
This accounts for almost 50.7% of all enrollments, with the amount of Catholics pupils at an all-time high.
In comparison, there were 114,314 Protestant pupils, 33% of the total, while 56,408 were designated as 'other'.


Now, of course, if you are over on Sluggerotoole some will claim that
- a lot of a Catholics are Poles etc
- a lot of Catholics don;t want a United Ireland
- all the others are unionists.

But since Brexit, the Polish people want a United Ireland too. The others may be mostly from a Protestant background but there are several % of greens in there too and some of the others are Orthodox Romanians or whatever and since Brexit these may well favour a UI also.

NI's days are numbered.

Going to pull you up on that last sentence. You might well be arguing that NI's days within UK are numbered but surely not arguing that NI 's days as a political entity are over
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on May 01, 2019, 10:32:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 01:44:02 PM
More Taigs
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-catholic-school-population-surges-to-record-high-38063956.html

there were 175,649 Catholic pupils in Northern Ireland's nursery, primary, secondary, grammar and special schools.
This accounts for almost 50.7% of all enrollments, with the amount of Catholics pupils at an all-time high.
In comparison, there were 114,314 Protestant pupils, 33% of the total, while 56,408 were designated as 'other'.


Now, of course, if you are over on Sluggerotoole some will claim that
- a lot of a Catholics are Poles etc
- a lot of Catholics don;t want a United Ireland
- all the others are unionists.

But since Brexit, the Polish people want a United Ireland too. The others may be mostly from a Protestant background but there are several % of greens in there too and some of the others are Orthodox Romanians or whatever and since Brexit these may well favour a UI also.

NI's days are numbered.

50% +1 is not going to work. Intelligent people know this. Those who don't are Ireland's version of Trump or UKIP supporters. They're not very bright and have no understanding of the wider consequences.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 01, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Going to pull you up on that last sentence. You might well be arguing that NI's days within UK are numbered but surely not arguing that NI 's days as a political entity are over

NI's purpose is to achieve a Protestant majority, if it does not do that what is the purpose of it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on May 02, 2019, 01:07:59 AM
I agree with Armaghniac, NI's days are numbered.  The Brexit shambles demonstrates clearly the futility of a border on this island.  It also demonstrates the complete lack of understanding and respect shown towards the people of the six counties by the Westminster establishment. 

When constitutional change happens, it often happens a lot faster than expected, and countries are taken off guard and unprepared.  Thus the reason the big conversation ref. a 'new' Ireland and island economy needs to be happening so no section of the community are left behind.  When it happens, the last thing we need is 30+ years of loyalist agitation and violence.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on May 02, 2019, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 01, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Going to pull you up on that last sentence. You might well be arguing that NI's days within UK are numbered but surely not arguing that NI 's days as a political entity are over

NI's purpose is to achieve a Protestant majority, if it does not do that what is the purpose of it?
Is that a serious question?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LooseCannon on May 02, 2019, 07:20:00 AM
Am I correct in saying that there's council elections up north today?
How's it going to go?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on May 02, 2019, 07:27:50 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 02, 2019, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 01, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Going to pull you up on that last sentence. You might well be arguing that NI's days within UK are numbered but surely not arguing that NI 's days as a political entity are over

NI's purpose is to achieve a Protestant majority, if it does not do that what is the purpose of it?
Is that a serious question?

It was built exactly for this purpose.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on May 02, 2019, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 02, 2019, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 01, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Going to pull you up on that last sentence. You might well be arguing that NI's days within UK are numbered but surely not arguing that NI 's days as a political entity are over

NI's purpose is to achieve a Protestant majority, if it does not do that what is the purpose of it?
Is that a serious question?

An inbuilt unionist majority - decided on a sectarian headcount nearly 100 years ago.

Everyone knows this!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: MoChara on May 02, 2019, 08:38:09 AM
Quote from: LooseCannon on May 02, 2019, 07:20:00 AM
Am I correct in saying that there's council elections up north today?
How's it going to go?

Yeah there is, there will be a lot of bluster about voting for change and then everyone will go out and vote the same way as they always have before
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 02, 2019, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 02, 2019, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 01, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Going to pull you up on that last sentence. You might well be arguing that NI's days within UK are numbered but surely not arguing that NI 's days as a political entity are over

NI's purpose is to achieve a Protestant majority, if it does not do that what is the purpose of it?
Is that a serious question?

Of course. There was a reason the other three Ulster counties were excluded. Why Tyrone and Fermanagh were included, I am led to believe (though I may be wrong) was because it wasn't meant to look as bad from the Protestant majority point of view.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 02, 2019, 10:19:23 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 02, 2019, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 02, 2019, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 01, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Going to pull you up on that last sentence. You might well be arguing that NI's days within UK are numbered but surely not arguing that NI 's days as a political entity are over

NI's purpose is to achieve a Protestant majority, if it does not do that what is the purpose of it?
Is that a serious question?

Of course. There was a reason the other three Ulster counties were excluded. Why Tyrone and Fermanagh were included, I am led to believe (though I may be wrong) was because it wasn't meant to look as bad from the Protestant majority point of view.
I think anything smaller wouldn't have been viable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 10:47:50 AM
Is there anybody on this forum who thinks that if NI and RoI each voted in separate referenda for a UI that this new Ireland would operate as a unitary state with no NI within it voting for a stormont?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2019, 11:28:44 AM
I honestly think rather than NI failing to exist, they'll just discard a couple of counties and hold what they have. It might be the only way to prevent decades of troubles again.

Only Antrim and Down have unionist majority, but I'd imagine they'd hang onto Armagh as well, as it contains Dan Winters cottage and the OO museum. Unless they move that brick by brick. Oh, and it has Portydown in it. You couldn't possibly leave that in that "Irish Republic"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on May 02, 2019, 11:35:01 AM
You can put it anywhere you like - it's a shithole.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 11:45:17 AM
The new All Ireland State won't be a Unitary State.
It will most likely be a Confederation with 2 "Home Rule" regions based on the 26 and 6 County Areas.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 11:45:17 AM
The new All Ireland State won't be a Unitary State.
It will most likely be a Confederation with 2 "Home Rule" regions based on the 26 and 6 County Areas.

I think you have got the drift of this.

NI surviving or not is not about the redrawing of the border it's about the virtually impossibility of there being a unitary state in a new Ireland. NI will exist. So even in a UI NI has to be made work.

Try getting a SF candidate to engage in this point though?

And in my experience there are some SF voters who back SF's "strategic" dodging of governmental responsibilities as a mean of proving NI not being to work without realising that even in a UI there will still be a stormont, a NI, a need for consent of 2 communities, a GFA, a role for the GB government etc etc

It seems SF have a vested interest in ignorance

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on May 02, 2019, 12:55:53 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 11:45:17 AM
The new All Ireland State won't be a Unitary State.
It will most likely be a Confederation with 2 "Home Rule" regions based on the 26 and 6 County Areas.

I think you have got the drift of this.

NI surviving or not is not about the redrawing of the border it's about the virtually impossibility of there being a unitary state in a new Ireland. NI will exist. So even in a UI NI has to be made work.

Try getting a SF candidate to engage in this point though?

And in my experience there are some SF voters who back SF's "strategic" dodging of governmental responsibilities as a mean of proving NI not being to work without realising that even in a UI there will still be a stormont, a NI, a need for consent of 2 communities, a GFA, a role for the GB government etc etc

It seems SF have a vested interest in ignorance

This

SF haven't the intelligence to understand this. For everyday they grandstand on equality issues they are pushing any possible UI further and further away.
The GFA is the only show in town. The sooner people realise this, then the sooner we can get on with the serious business of making NI work and work it must if you want to achieve a UI as I do.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2019, 12:58:09 PM
Yeah good points smelmoth.

Someone said a few posts back, there'd be interesting times ahead if the south rejected the north uniting. Likewise, if GB rejected the north as part of the UK.

Can you imagine if both happened?

Would there even be justification for SF and DUP existing?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Kickham csc on May 02, 2019, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 02, 2019, 12:55:53 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 11:45:17 AM
The new All Ireland State won't be a Unitary State.
It will most likely be a Confederation with 2 "Home Rule" regions based on the 26 and 6 County Areas.

I think you have got the drift of this.

NI surviving or not is not about the redrawing of the border it's about the virtually impossibility of there being a unitary state in a new Ireland. NI will exist. So even in a UI NI has to be made work.

Try getting a SF candidate to engage in this point though?

And in my experience there are some SF voters who back SF's "strategic" dodging of governmental responsibilities as a mean of proving NI not being to work without realising that even in a UI there will still be a stormont, a NI, a need for consent of 2 communities, a GFA, a role for the GB government etc etc

It seems SF have a vested interest in ignorance

This

SF haven't the intelligence to understand this. For everyday they grandstand on equality issues they are pushing any possible UI further and further away.
The GFA is the only show in town. The sooner people realise this, then the sooner we can get on with the serious business of making NI work and work it must if you want to achieve a UI as I do.

Think you are wrong there. I believe SF have a long term strategy and are working towards that. Look at how they managed SDLP, growth in the south, and even how they managed Brexit (relatively bruise free). They are a durable party, that are prepared to "tough it out" during periods of bad press.

On unification,  and evidence of them considering changes that will be required to accommodate the British / Unionist identify, she spoke last year about being open to discussions on Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth.

I think SF have a better understanding the objectives of the game that others are giving them credit for.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Denn Forever on May 02, 2019, 01:21:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcgscTnXRzA
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: Kickham csc on May 02, 2019, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 02, 2019, 12:55:53 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 11:45:17 AM
The new All Ireland State won't be a Unitary State.
It will most likely be a Confederation with 2 "Home Rule" regions based on the 26 and 6 County Areas.

I think you have got the drift of this.

NI surviving or not is not about the redrawing of the border it's about the virtually impossibility of there being a unitary state in a new Ireland. NI will exist. So even in a UI NI has to be made work.

Try getting a SF candidate to engage in this point though?

And in my experience there are some SF voters who back SF's "strategic" dodging of governmental responsibilities as a mean of proving NI not being to work without realising that even in a UI there will still be a stormont, a NI, a need for consent of 2 communities, a GFA, a role for the GB government etc etc

It seems SF have a vested interest in ignorance

This

SF haven't the intelligence to understand this. For everyday they grandstand on equality issues they are pushing any possible UI further and further away.
The GFA is the only show in town. The sooner people realise this, then the sooner we can get on with the serious business of making NI work and work it must if you want to achieve a UI as I do.

Think you are wrong there. I believe SF have a long term strategy and are working towards that. Look at how they managed SDLP, growth in the south, and even how they managed Brexit (relatively bruise free). They are a durable party, that are prepared to "tough it out" during periods of bad press.

On unification,  and evidence of them considering changes that will be required to accommodate the British / Unionist identify, she spoke last year about being open to discussions on Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth.

I think SF have a better understanding the objectives of the game that others are giving them credit for.

Are they any good at delivering government?

Are their candidates truthful about NI continuing to exist even in a UI?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 03:49:54 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

The alternative to making it work is to indulge in the delusion that it doesn't have to be made work (because it isn't going away) and all the time enduring the consequences of it not working. No sane person could advocate that

As a society we can be held up indefinitely by people who want to indulge in a delusion
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on May 02, 2019, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

It is all that, but I think the point smelmoth and Trailer are trying to make is that unionism and to a lesser extent the population down south need to believe that the United Ireland on offer gives them some sort of meaningful representation (Unionists) and a peaceful integration (both).
Is a regional devolved parliament for the 6 counties a long term solution, IMO no, but probably from day 1 of a UI I'd suspect it or something similar in place.

Problem for the Shinners is that the DUP will deny any vestiges of Irishness in Northern Ireland till their dying day irrespective of who is the main nationalist party.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 04:15:02 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 02, 2019, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

It is all that, but I think the point smelmoth and Trailer are trying to make is that unionism and to a lesser extent the population down south need to believe that the United Ireland on offer gives them some sort of meaningful representation (Unionists) and a peaceful integration (both).
Is a regional devolved parliament for the 6 counties a long term solution, IMO no, but probably from day 1 of a UI I'd suspect it or something similar in place.

Problem for the Shinners is that the DUP will deny any vestiges of Irishness in Northern Ireland till their dying day irrespective of who is the main nationalist party.

It's more than just that. Obviously for there to be a UI there has to be a Vote in favour of it in NI and then separately in ROI. But neither vote removes the GFA or the responsibilities of the 2 governments which they can be held to under international law.

So whatever structures are in place will have the agreement of the GB government. The idea that GB government are going to say not only is NI now in a UI but that they won't insist on power sharing within NI just isn't going to fly. Remember if they don't meet their GFA duties they are in the dock for it.

Many on here have argued that GB will stand on to part fund NI. So this washing of the hands ain't going to be easy

The other alternative is to get rid of GFA but guess what that can only happen if 4 things happen. Irish and British governments have to agree and you will need a majority of both communities in NI.

Every way you look at it NI can be independent, a devolved region of UK or a devolved region of a new Ireland but NI and power sharing is here to stay.

Anybody who says it has failed, is failing or that they want it to fail still doesn't address the fact that all of that doesn't change the reality that we are stuck with it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 04:35:11 PM
Wouldn't we in the 26 also have to vote to drop the GFA?
Didn't a majority of Unionist voters vote against it in the 6 Cos?
But a majority made up of Nationalist and unaligned voters plus some Unionists voted in favour.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on May 02, 2019, 04:40:19 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 04:35:11 PM
Wouldn't we in the 26 also have to vote to drop the GFA?
Didn't a majority of Unionist voters vote against it in the 6 Cos?
But a majority made up of Nationalist and unaligned voters plus some Unionists voted in favour.


Impossible to say for sure but prob not. Only 29% voted against in NI..... some of those were also Nationalist based on articles 2&3

Also UU party who supported it were the largest Unionist Party in the elections following so you would have to assume a slim majority of Unionists voted for it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 04:48:04 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 04:35:11 PM
Wouldn't we in the 26 also have to vote to drop the GFA?
Didn't a majority of Unionist voters vote against it in the 6 Cos?
But a majority made up of Nationalist and unaligned voters plus some Unionists voted in favour.

GFA wouldn't demand an Irish referendum but the Irish constitution would

I think a majority of unionists did vote for GFA but you are correct all the same to call me out on the issue. GFA change would only require an overall majority. But that is where the governments came in. Don't think Irish government would agree to any change that didn't have majority nationalist support and ditto UK government an unionists
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 05:10:46 PM
Hmmmmmm.....
Suppose in say 2030 55% vote to leave the UK and joun an A.I. State.
Unionists will no doubt be almost 100% " NO".
The British (or hopefully English/Welsh) Government can't just simply say No.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 02, 2019, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

NI did work for 50 years, for the unionist people, as it was designed to do.

It stopped "working" when those pesky taigs asked for some basic human rights such as a job, a vote and a house.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 06:12:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 05:10:46 PM
Hmmmmmm.....
Suppose in say 2030 55% vote to leave the UK and joun an A.I. State.
Unionists will no doubt be almost 100% " NO".
The British (or hopefully English/Welsh) Government can't just simply say No.

They could say no a a version of UI that didn't enshrine power sharing and an East-West dimension. Otherwise some pesky unionist would challenge them under their GFA duties
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2019, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

NI did work for 50 years, for the unionist people, as it was designed to do.

It stopped "working" when those pesky taigs asked for some basic human rights such as a job, a vote and a house.

Well we have got our jobs, our votes and our houses. Let's use them votes to build something positive
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on May 02, 2019, 06:30:33 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2019, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

NI did work for 50 years, for the unionist people, as it was designed to do.

It stopped "working" when those pesky taigs asked for some basic human rights such as a job, a vote and a house.

Well we have got our jobs, our votes and our houses. Let's use them votes to build something positive

That boat has sailed. Mc Guinness did his utmost to work with the DUP - everybody knows this, even unionists but the didn't reciprocate.

ni is a failed state. Build on a deliberate Protestant majority at the start. 

You talk about we have everything now - was at City Hall.  I did the tour.  I asked the guide where was all the Irish statues etc. etc. as it was all unionist characters of the past.  No recognition of anything Irish in it.  With a sheepish head on the guide, they spouted something about a recent vote at city council about adding things to city hall.

Waffle!!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 07:01:31 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 02, 2019, 06:30:33 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2019, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

NI did work for 50 years, for the unionist people, as it was designed to do.

It stopped "working" when those pesky taigs asked for some basic human rights such as a job, a vote and a house.

Well we have got our jobs, our votes and our houses. Let's use them votes to build something positive

That boat has sailed. Mc Guinness did his utmost to work with the DUP - everybody knows this, even unionists but the didn't reciprocate.

ni is a failed state. Build on a deliberate Protestant majority at the start. 

You talk about we have everything now - was at City Hall.  I did the tour.  I asked the guide where was all the Irish statues etc. etc. as it was all unionist characters of the past.  No recognition of anything Irish in it.  With a sheepish head on the guide, they spouted something about a recent vote at city council about adding things to city hall.

Waffle!!!

DUP don't need to reciprocate. I'm not waiting around for them to reciprocate. I'm more interested in getting rid of them. We don't need SF and DUP to climb down from their red lines- we need parties with a different agenda. Parties interest in making this place work (because it isn't going away)

I didn't say we had everything. You know that. You made it up. Only you know why you made up.

Have you any interest in trying to make NI work?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 09:26:13 PM
The worse the place gets economically the less likely the 26 Co voters would vote for a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: rrhf on May 02, 2019, 09:34:21 PM
The world needs a Berlin Wall moment..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on May 02, 2019, 09:40:11 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 09:26:13 PM
The worse the place gets economically the less likely the 26 Co voters would vote for a UI.

Probably correct. Though the UK govt might pay off for a few years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on May 02, 2019, 10:12:17 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 02, 2019, 09:40:11 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2019, 09:26:13 PM
The worse the place gets economically the less likely the 26 Co voters would vote for a UI.

Probably correct. Though the UK govt might pay off for a few years.

I'd imagine the EU would heavily fund it too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on May 02, 2019, 11:05:41 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2019, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

NI did work for 50 years, for the unionist people, as it was designed to do.

It stopped "working" when those pesky taigs asked for some basic human rights such as a job, a vote and a house.

It stopped working when those pesky taigs formed the PIRA and finally stood up to them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: macdanger2 on May 03, 2019, 12:14:49 AM
Quote from: rrhf on May 02, 2019, 09:34:21 PM
The world needs a Berlin Wall moment..

Anyone have the Hoff's number handy?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on May 03, 2019, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on May 02, 2019, 11:05:41 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 02, 2019, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on May 02, 2019, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 02, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
The simple question today (this very day) is what is the point of voting SF?

NI has to be made work- can anybody sincerely say that SF or DUP is the best way to make NI work? The future can start now if people would only wake up to it
I dont buy in to that. People have tried to make it work for 100 years and it has failed. Many nationalists at this stage cant even buy in to the idea of wanting it to work. It is by every definition a failed state.

NI did work for 50 years, for the unionist people, as it was designed to do.

It stopped "working" when those pesky taigs asked for some basic human rights such as a job, a vote and a house.

It stopped working when those pesky taigs formed the PIRA and finally stood up to them.

That's almost the unionist narrative there Charlie.

I'd prefer to go with the Civil Rights movement kicked it off, were hammered off the streets by the RUC/Unionist establishment.
And then we'd 30 years of needless bloodshed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on May 06, 2019, 08:33:41 AM
The biggest obstacle to NI working is the DUP, they will not countenance NI reflecting any vestiges of Irishness and will fight it. It would appear from the election results that a good solid core of Unionism agrees with them. The growth of alliance forces the death of the SDLP and UUP. One not green enough and the other too true blue. SF's UI hopes though are floundering on 47% of nationalists or there about who don't care enough to vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 10:02:18 AM
What was the turnout on Thursday?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on May 06, 2019, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 10:02:18 AM
What was the turnout on Thursday?

52.7%. Not as bad as had been feared.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on May 06, 2019, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 10:02:18 AM
What was the turnout on Thursday?

52.7%. Not as bad as had been feared.

Maybe, but clearly half the people in the north don't give a flying fcuk. And who can blame them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on May 06, 2019, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 10:02:18 AM
What was the turnout on Thursday?

52.7%. Not as bad as had been feared.

Maybe, but clearly half the people in the north don't give a flying fcuk. And who can blame them.

If they don't vote, then they can't complain!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on May 06, 2019, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on May 06, 2019, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 10:02:18 AM
What was the turnout on Thursday?

52.7%. Not as bad as had been feared.

Maybe, but clearly half the people in the north don't give a flying fcuk. And who can blame them.

If they don't vote, then they can't complain!

They can complain

and they will

and then they still won't vote
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 03:22:58 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on May 06, 2019, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 10:02:18 AM
What was the turnout on Thursday?

52.7%. Not as bad as had been feared.

Maybe, but clearly half the people in the north don't give a flying fcuk. And who can blame them.

If they don't vote, then they can't complain!

But those who don't vote, can't be blamed for keeping the circus going.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 03:22:58 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on May 06, 2019, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 06, 2019, 10:02:18 AM
What was the turnout on Thursday?

52.7%. Not as bad as had been feared.

Maybe, but clearly half the people in the north don't give a flying fcuk. And who can blame them.

If they don't vote, then they can't complain!

But those who don't vote, can't be blamed for keeping the circus going.

I'd say thay can - go out and vote and make a difference.

47% not voting.  That'd make some difference.

Maybe make voting compulsory - then nobody can complain!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on May 06, 2019, 04:20:59 PM
No complaints, as long as they add a "none of the above" box to the ballot paper, to save having to spoil it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 04:26:53 PM
Yeah, why do people go the bother of going to vote, then spoil their vote.

Makes no sense to me.  A complete waste of time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on May 06, 2019, 04:30:43 PM
Thoughtful article from Stephen Nichols, a recently defeated UUP candidate.

Unionism at the crossroads

There are many lessons to be learned by Ulster Unionism arising from the council elections, many internal issues need to be resolved but there is one lesson that all of unionism needs to learn, based on this election the Union is at a real and tangible risk of being brought to an end.

Before anyone suggests that this is an attempt to lump the Alliance party or its electorate into a pan-nationalist front let me assure them it is not. Recent attacks on the Alliance party for its voting record were atrocious and self-defeating, though the defeats did not fall on those making the statements.

This is simply an assessment of the implications of the social change we are witnessing in Northern Ireland. As we move further from the history of conflict the definition of what passes for "normal" is changing and with it peoples aspirations. The vote for the Alliance party reflects that.

So why does this put the union at risk.

The DUP do not have veto on when a referendum will be called, voting for them will not stop it happening. After Brexit no government will call such a referendum and work out what it means after the result is known, instead in this case there will be, probably, years of negotiation covering every conceivable issue, pensions, welfare, citizenship, health, social care and all the rest. What people will vote on will be an agreement far more detailed and complex than anything produced for Brexit. And do not believe that the British Government will not contribute for many years to subsidise a United Ireland. Of course they will.

Within that agreement will be the vision of a new society, which will appeal to many not bound by the binary choice of the past. Unionism simply saying no will not save the union, wrapping the flag more tightly around our shoulders will not save the union.

To defend the union we must first define the union, not as it exists now but as an inclusive majority will want it to exist in the future. We must present an alternative to the United Ireland vision and we must recognise that the next generations have different priorities. Many of the social issues where people want change are part of Irish society, they are also part of British society yet ironically by remaining in the UK that change is denied to them in our wee country.

Having power in the short term and defining unionism in narrow terms across all aspects of people's lives will eventually lead to the end of the union. An open unionism, embracing all faiths and aspirations, defining civil and religious liberty in its broadest terms, committed to delivering the new society that people want and guaranteeing that being British means being an equal citizen within the UK represents the best chance of maintaining the union. Ulster once stood at the crossroads, unionism stands there now.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: playwiththewind1st on May 06, 2019, 04:52:24 PM
"Thoughtful" is not a word that you could use to describe too many within the leadership tiers of Unionism & that causes problems.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 07, 2019, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on May 06, 2019, 04:30:43 PM
Thoughtful article from Stephen Nichols, a recently defeated UUP candidate.

Unionism at the crossroads

There are many lessons to be learned by Ulster Unionism arising from the council elections, many internal issues need to be resolved but there is one lesson that all of unionism needs to learn, based on this election the Union is at a real and tangible risk of being brought to an end.

.....

Having power in the short term and defining unionism in narrow terms across all aspects of people's lives will eventually lead to the end of the union. An open unionism, embracing all faiths and aspirations, defining civil and religious liberty in its broadest terms, committed to delivering the new society that people want and guaranteeing that being British means being an equal citizen within the UK represents the best chance of maintaining the union. Ulster once stood at the crossroads, unionism stands there now.

I am not so thoughtful as just stating the bleeding obvious.  I have posted here before that I cannot understand how somewhere there isn't a paid adviser/strategist pointing this out to unionist politicians.

/Jim.


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 07, 2019, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 07, 2019, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on May 06, 2019, 04:30:43 PM
Thoughtful article from Stephen Nichols, a recently defeated UUP candidate.

Unionism at the crossroads

There are many lessons to be learned by Ulster Unionism arising from the council elections, many internal issues need to be resolved but there is one lesson that all of unionism needs to learn, based on this election the Union is at a real and tangible risk of being brought to an end.

.....

Having power in the short term and defining unionism in narrow terms across all aspects of people's lives will eventually lead to the end of the union. An open unionism, embracing all faiths and aspirations, defining civil and religious liberty in its broadest terms, committed to delivering the new society that people want and guaranteeing that being British means being an equal citizen within the UK represents the best chance of maintaining the union. Ulster once stood at the crossroads, unionism stands there now.

I am not so thoughtful as just stating the bleeding obvious.  I have posted here before that I cannot understand how somewhere there isn't a paid adviser/strategist pointing this out to unionist politicians.

/Jim.

I think there probably is but weak politicians looking for short term certainty and an easy life don't produce leadership or long term vision
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 07, 2019, 01:52:38 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 07, 2019, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on May 06, 2019, 04:30:43 PM
Thoughtful article from Stephen Nichols, a recently defeated UUP candidate.

Unionism at the crossroads

There are many lessons to be learned by Ulster Unionism arising from the council elections, many internal issues need to be resolved but there is one lesson that all of unionism needs to learn, based on this election the Union is at a real and tangible risk of being brought to an end.

.....

Having power in the short term and defining unionism in narrow terms across all aspects of people's lives will eventually lead to the end of the union. An open unionism, embracing all faiths and aspirations, defining civil and religious liberty in its broadest terms, committed to delivering the new society that people want and guaranteeing that being British means being an equal citizen within the UK represents the best chance of maintaining the union. Ulster once stood at the crossroads, unionism stands there now.

I am not so thoughtful as just stating the bleeding obvious.  I have posted here before that I cannot understand how somewhere there isn't a paid adviser/strategist pointing this out to unionist politicians.

/Jim.

Unionism is like the schoolyard bully. He is all about degrading, humiliating, dominating its victim. He doesn't see a problem with any of that, nor stealing a kids dinner money. Does he stop and think that the kid will go hungry? Will be possibly scarred for life? Being depressed or suicidal? No, the bully cares only for himself. There's no talking or reasoning with a bully

Unionism was and is that bully. There's no talking to it either.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2019, 09:26:53 PM
We once had a history teacher who was renowned for beating the crap out of pupils. It never crossed his mind that these youngsters would eventually grow up, and since he was such a short-ass he didn't seem to realise that his victims would end up bigger than him. When the inevitable happened and the kids grew up to be much bigger than him, he lost the ability to walk around the town without fearing for his safety. Any time a former pupil approached him to say hello in the street, he'd get as nervous as all hell because at the back of his mind he was wondering if he was going to get another dose of his own medicine.

That is pretty much the status with unionism today. It used to be that they feared an army of nuns and priests flooding over the border to convert them to the "one true faith." Today I think they're terrified that in a united Ireland they're going to get a taste of their own medicine with protestants sent to the back of the queue for public housing, "protestants need not apply" job ads in the paper, and council elections gerrymandered to within an inch of their life to obliterate all prod representation.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on May 07, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Protestants feared "home rule would be Rome rule". They were proved correct. Pity they made a mess of the North at the same time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2019, 11:35:11 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 07, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Protestants feared "home rule would be Rome rule". They were proved correct. Pity they made a mess of the North at the same time.

If the country had left the UK in its entirety then it would have been less likely that the place would have become a theocratic hell hole at either end of the island. Prods and Taigs would have been better balanced. There's no way a million protestants would have allowed the place to be overrun by the bishops. It could have been like the founding of the United States where there were so many competing denominations that they just had to compromise on the religion thing and make the constitution religiously neutral.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on May 08, 2019, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2019, 11:35:11 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 07, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Protestants feared "home rule would be Rome rule". They were proved correct. Pity they made a mess of the North at the same time.

If the country had left the UK in its entirety then it would have been less likely that the place would have become a theocratic hell hole at either end of the island. Prods and Taigs would have been better balanced. There's no way a million protestants would have allowed the place to be overrun by the bishops. It could have been like the founding of the United States where there were so many competing denominations that they just had to compromise on the religion thing and make the constitution religiously neutral.

There was plenty of Protestants down South and they had to endure Catholic laws. Contraception was outlawed until the 1980s (every sperm is sacred) and divorce until the 1990s after a failed referendum in the 1980s. Parties like Sinn Fein and Fianna Fáil did not for example support the divorce referendum. It wasn't just bishops; the Catholic people and the Catholic politicians were every bit as bad. It took us an awful long time to grow up. It's no that long since half the country were gone mad chasing moving statues. Even some bishops were aghast at that nonsense.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 08, 2019, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2019, 11:35:11 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 07, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Protestants feared "home rule would be Rome rule". They were proved correct. Pity they made a mess of the North at the same time.

If the country had left the UK in its entirety then it would have been less likely that the place would have become a theocratic hell hole at either end of the island. Prods and Taigs would have been better balanced. There's no way a million protestants would have allowed the place to be overrun by the bishops. It could have been like the founding of the United States where there were so many competing denominations that they just had to compromise on the religion thing and make the constitution religiously neutral.

There was plenty of Protestants down South and they had to endure Catholic laws. Contraception was outlawed until the 1980s (every sperm is sacred) and divorce until the 1990s after a failed referendum in the 1980s. Parties like Sinn Fein and Fianna Fáil did not for example support the divorce referendum. It wasn't just bishops; the Catholic people and the Catholic politicians were every bit as bad. It took us an awful long time to grow up. It's no that long since half the country were gone mad chasing moving statues. Even some bishops were aghast at that nonsense.

There were loads of other things these Bishops should have been aghast at but chose not to utter a word.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 08, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 08, 2019, 11:57:15 AM
There was plenty of Protestants down South and they had to endure Catholic laws. Contraception was outlawed until the 1980s (every sperm is sacred) and divorce until the 1990s after a failed referendum in the 1980s. Parties like Sinn Fein and Fianna Fáil did not for example support the divorce referendum. It wasn't just bishops; the Catholic people and the Catholic politicians were every bit as bad. It took us an awful long time to grow up. It's no that long since half the country were gone mad chasing moving statues. Even some bishops were aghast at that nonsense.

This implies that Protestants were necessarily in favour of divorce etc. As current DUP policy shows, this idea that Protestants favour anything goes is bollix.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on May 08, 2019, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 08, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 08, 2019, 11:57:15 AM
There was plenty of Protestants down South and they had to endure Catholic laws. Contraception was outlawed until the 1980s (every sperm is sacred) and divorce until the 1990s after a failed referendum in the 1980s. Parties like Sinn Fein and Fianna Fáil did not for example support the divorce referendum. It wasn't just bishops; the Catholic people and the Catholic politicians were every bit as bad. It took us an awful long time to grow up. It's no that long since half the country were gone mad chasing moving statues. Even some bishops were aghast at that nonsense.

This implies that Protestants were necessarily in favour of divorce etc. As current DUP policy shows, this idea that Protestants favour anything goes is bollix.

Yes, get that the DUP types are ultra conservative. But the main point is we were not a plural society. Catholicism ruled the roost. Sure even when our first Protestant president Douglas Hyde died, the majority of Catholic politicians did not attend his funeral. Fianna Fail stayed at home, and FG attended but decided to stay in their cars outside. And after all that man did for Irish culture. Lots of other examples. We sold babies sold out of wedlock. We banned books, forced teachers like John McGahern out of a job. We were a shocking bunch down South. And in a United Ireland we would still have been a shocking bunch. And if people like Padraic Pearse (a bigger headcase than Dev) got their way, we'd have been even worse.


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 02:40:25 PM
And they banned 'The Life of Brian'!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on May 08, 2019, 02:56:07 PM
The way forward a hundred years ago would have been American chairmanship of a process involving all sides, a bit like 80 years later, and some American ideas about religious freedom to be incorporated into the constitution. But the British were determined to keep neutrals out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on May 08, 2019, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 08, 2019, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 08, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 08, 2019, 11:57:15 AM
There was plenty of Protestants down South and they had to endure Catholic laws. Contraception was outlawed until the 1980s (every sperm is sacred) and divorce until the 1990s after a failed referendum in the 1980s. Parties like Sinn Fein and Fianna Fáil did not for example support the divorce referendum. It wasn't just bishops; the Catholic people and the Catholic politicians were every bit as bad. It took us an awful long time to grow up. It's no that long since half the country were gone mad chasing moving statues. Even some bishops were aghast at that nonsense.

This implies that Protestants were necessarily in favour of divorce etc. As current DUP policy shows, this idea that Protestants favour anything goes is bollix.

Yes, get that the DUP types are ultra conservative. But the main point is we were not a plural society. Catholicism ruled the roost. Sure even when our first Protestant president Douglas Hyde died, the majority of Catholic politicians did not attend his funeral. Fianna Fail stayed at home, and FG attended but decided to stay in their cars outside. And after all that man did for Irish culture. Lots of other examples. We sold babies sold out of wedlock. We banned books, forced teachers like John McGahern out of a job. We were a shocking bunch down South. And in a United Ireland we would still have been a shocking bunch. And if people like Padraic Pearse (a bigger headcase than Dev) got their way, we'd have been even worse.

So when we're discussing any future Ireland all this must be remembered. This is the the position that Unionism may come from. And their fears are not unfounded. The challenge is for us to build in safety nets for Unionism in a future Ireland. Step 1 is a functioning and well run Stormont government. This is why SF's position is stupid and ill thought out. An agreed Ireland is the way forward, not a 50%+1 and suck it up vote. To be prosperous for the next 100 years all sides must buy into the future of Ireland and all are capable of making a worthwhile contribution.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.

Good luck with that.

The only way there'll be a UI, is to get your 50+1. But hang on tight for another few decades, while the troubles return with a vengeance. That'll be the price of a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on May 08, 2019, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.

Good luck with that.

The only way there'll be a UI, is to get your 50+1. But hang on tight for another few decades, while the troubles return with a vengeance. That'll be the price of a UI.

So you say. But you haven't even tried.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.

Good luck with that.

The only way there'll be a UI, is to get your 50+1. But hang on tight for another few decades, while the troubles return with a vengeance. That'll be the price of a UI.

So you say. But you haven't even tried.

If you can't get unionists on board with an ILA, are they seriously going to consider the possibilities of even discussing a UI?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 08, 2019, 04:17:31 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 04:04:24 PM

If you can't get unionists on board with an ILA, are they seriously going to consider the possibilities of even discussing a UI?

There are nuances within unionism. Some are anti ILA like the DUP. Some would be ambivalent and don't care about it. Others would be interested in learning more about Irish but are put off by the politicisation of it. And others are fluent Irish speakers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on May 08, 2019, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.

Good luck with that.

The only way there'll be a UI, is to get your 50+1. But hang on tight for another few decades, while the troubles return with a vengeance. That'll be the price of a UI.

So you say. But you haven't even tried.

If you can't get unionists on board with an ILA, are they seriously going to consider the possibilities of even discussing a UI?

All unionists are against everything and therefore we must not try. Is this your position?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 08, 2019, 05:36:26 PM
On the whole 50+1 thing, unionists are simply going to have to like it or lump it. The thing is, things will never be as bad for them in a United Ireland as they were for nationalists in the northern state and therefore scaremongering of violence is pointless. Unionists will be welcomed into a United Ireland. Likewise anyone who wishes is welcome to move to Britain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.

Good luck with that.

The only way there'll be a UI, is to get your 50+1. But hang on tight for another few decades, while the troubles return with a vengeance. That'll be the price of a UI.

So you say. But you haven't even tried.

If you can't get unionists on board with an ILA, are they seriously going to consider the possibilities of even discussing a UI?

All unionists are against everything and therefore we must not try. Is this your position?

Try, by all means.

But history shows that when unionism is threatened it comes out biting. Ulster covenant, civil rights marches, workers strikes, Anglo Irish agreement, fallout from Drumcree parades, fleg protests. Unionists won't even discuss how a UI might work, as that will already show that they have moved one inch from their "never never never" position.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 08, 2019, 06:13:44 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 05:38:35 PM

Try, by all means.

But history shows that when unionism is threatened it comes out biting. Ulster covenant, civil rights marches, workers strikes, Anglo Irish agreement, fallout from Drumcree parades, fleg protests. Unionists won't even discuss how a UI might work, as that will already show that they have moved one inch from their "never never never" position.

Some, we'll call them Type A, will come out biting. Others, we'll call them Type B, will be willing to make it work. The question becomes, how do we maximise the number of Type Bs and minimise the number of Type As? A lot depends on how the distinct identity of unionists is reflected in the institutions of the new state.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on May 08, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
We need to get to a place where united Ireland vs the Union is not green vs orange ... for those who promote a UI, they need to show why it is better both culturally and economically.  Likewise, those who promote the status quo of the union, need to explain in great detail as to why the union is better.  Let's have that big discussion and see where it goes, it may take the next 10+ years to have it, but let's have it.  Just demanding one or the other blindly does not suffice.

IMO NI is a failed entity, Unionists have failed NI, partition has failed this whole island.  But my opinion is worth nothing unless I back it up with hard facts.  My unionist colleagues in work have no argument to the economic fact that NI is a public sector dependent basket case.  Where's Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, IBM, HP etc etc based in the north?  Nowhere is the answer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on May 08, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
We need to get to a place where united Ireland vs the Union is not green vs orange ... for those who promote a UI, they need to show why it is better both culturally and economically.  Likewise, those who promote the status quo of the union, need to explain in great detail as to why the union is better.  Let's have that big discussion and see where it goes, it may take the next 10+ years to have it, but let's have it.  Just demanding one or the other blindly does not suffice.

IMO NI is a failed entity, Unionists have failed NI, partition has failed this whole island.  But my opinion is worth nothing unless I back it up with hard facts.  My unionist colleagues in work have no argument to the economic fact that NI is a public sector dependent basket case.  Where's Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, IBM, HP etc etc based in the north?  Nowhere is the answer.

Successive British governments and their policies here have helped make the north a basket case. That's why there's no sign of google or Apple up here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:42:57 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.

Good luck with that.

The only way there'll be a UI, is to get your 50+1. But hang on tight for another few decades, while the troubles return with a vengeance. That'll be the price of a UI.

So you say. But you haven't even tried.

If you can't get unionists on board with an ILA, are they seriously going to consider the possibilities of even discussing a UI?

But what ILA is it? There are potential ILAs that you couldn't get a majority of nationalists to back. If ILA is to be a political football is it not time to publish the SF version so individually we can decide if we would back it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 08, 2019, 05:36:26 PM
On the whole 50+1 thing, unionists are simply going to have to like it or lump it. The thing is, things will never be as bad for them in a United Ireland as they were for nationalists in the northern state and therefore scaremongering of violence is pointless. Unionists will be welcomed into a United Ireland. Likewise anyone who wishes is welcome to move to Britain.

Going to have to lump it?
Anyone who wishes is welcome to move to Britain

The very definition of welcome. Does this fit with SF's shared space or shared future or is it completely at odds with political nationalism and political republicanism?
How will it work with continuing power sharing in NI within a united ireland?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:50:06 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.

Good luck with that.

The only way there'll be a UI, is to get your 50+1. But hang on tight for another few decades, while the troubles return with a vengeance. That'll be the price of a UI.

So you say. But you haven't even tried.

If you can't get unionists on board with an ILA, are they seriously going to consider the possibilities of even discussing a UI?

All unionists are against everything and therefore we must not try. Is this your position?

Try, by all means.

But history shows that when unionism is threatened it comes out biting. Ulster covenant, civil rights marches, workers strikes, Anglo Irish agreement, fallout from Drumcree parades, fleg protests. Unionists won't even discuss how a UI might work, as that will already show that they have moved one inch from their "never never never" position.

Show me where nationalism or republicanism have discussed how a UI might work?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:56:45 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on May 08, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
We need to get to a place where united Ireland vs the Union is not green vs orange ... for those who promote a UI, they need to show why it is better both culturally and economically.  Likewise, those who promote the status quo of the union, need to explain in great detail as to why the union is better.  Let's have that big discussion and see where it goes, it may take the next 10+ years to have it, but let's have it.  Just demanding one or the other blindly does not suffice.

IMO NI is a failed entity, Unionists have failed NI, partition has failed this whole island.  But my opinion is worth nothing unless I back it up with hard facts.  My unionist colleagues in work have no argument to the economic fact that NI is a public sector dependent basket case.  Where's Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, IBM, HP etc etc based in the north?  Nowhere is the answer.

Successive British governments and their policies here have helped make the north a basket case. That's why there's no sign of google or Apple up here.

Are google and Apple in RoI because they are successful economies or because they are tax rate whores? If uk lowered corporate tax or allowed a lower rate in NI would NI compete with RoI for these mobile firms?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on May 08, 2019, 10:22:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:56:45 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on May 08, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
We need to get to a place where united Ireland vs the Union is not green vs orange ... for those who promote a UI, they need to show why it is better both culturally and economically.  Likewise, those who promote the status quo of the union, need to explain in great detail as to why the union is better.  Let's have that big discussion and see where it goes, it may take the next 10+ years to have it, but let's have it.  Just demanding one or the other blindly does not suffice.

IMO NI is a failed entity, Unionists have failed NI, partition has failed this whole island.  But my opinion is worth nothing unless I back it up with hard facts.  My unionist colleagues in work have no argument to the economic fact that NI is a public sector dependent basket case.  Where's Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, IBM, HP etc etc based in the north?  Nowhere is the answer.

Successive British governments and their policies here have helped make the north a basket case. That's why there's no sign of google or Apple up here.

Are google and Apple in RoI because they are successful economies or because they are tax rate whores? If uk lowered corporate tax or allowed a lower rate in NI would NI compete with RoI for these mobile firms?

Would Alabama be able to compete with California? As well as looking to make filthy profits, these companies are also eager to attract a talented workforce, so lifestyle and other factors are important too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 10:28:58 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:50:06 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 08, 2019, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 08, 2019, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 03:39:27 PM
Trailer, a 50+1 vote is all you're going to get, if you're lucky. 1 million or so unionists aren't going to come quietly.

There will always be the died in the wool types on both sides, but the onus in a UI is to keep this group as small a minority group as possible on the PUL side.

Good luck with that.

The only way there'll be a UI, is to get your 50+1. But hang on tight for another few decades, while the troubles return with a vengeance. That'll be the price of a UI.

So you say. But you haven't even tried.

If you can't get unionists on board with an ILA, are they seriously going to consider the possibilities of even discussing a UI?

All unionists are against everything and therefore we must not try. Is this your position?

Try, by all means.

But history shows that when unionism is threatened it comes out biting. Ulster covenant, civil rights marches, workers strikes, Anglo Irish agreement, fallout from Drumcree parades, fleg protests. Unionists won't even discuss how a UI might work, as that will already show that they have moved one inch from their "never never never" position.

Show me where nationalism or republicanism have discussed how a UI might work?

Other than say "time for a border poll", they haven't.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Chicago Hurling on May 08, 2019, 10:30:46 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:56:45 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on May 08, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
We need to get to a place where united Ireland vs the Union is not green vs orange ... for those who promote a UI, they need to show why it is better both culturally and economically.  Likewise, those who promote the status quo of the union, need to explain in great detail as to why the union is better.  Let's have that big discussion and see where it goes, it may take the next 10+ years to have it, but let's have it.  Just demanding one or the other blindly does not suffice.

IMO NI is a failed entity, Unionists have failed NI, partition has failed this whole island.  But my opinion is worth nothing unless I back it up with hard facts.  My unionist colleagues in work have no argument to the economic fact that NI is a public sector dependent basket case.  Where's Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, IBM, HP etc etc based in the north?  Nowhere is the answer.

Successive British governments and their policies here have helped make the north a basket case. That's why there's no sign of google or Apple up here.

Are google and Apple in RoI because they are successful economies or because they are tax rate whores? If uk lowered corporate tax or allowed a lower rate in NI would NI compete with RoI for these mobile firms?

Highly doubtful. It's too theocratic for the California tech company company culture .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 11:03:55 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 08, 2019, 10:22:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:56:45 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on May 08, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
We need to get to a place where united Ireland vs the Union is not green vs orange ... for those who promote a UI, they need to show why it is better both culturally and economically.  Likewise, those who promote the status quo of the union, need to explain in great detail as to why the union is better.  Let's have that big discussion and see where it goes, it may take the next 10+ years to have it, but let's have it.  Just demanding one or the other blindly does not suffice.

IMO NI is a failed entity, Unionists have failed NI, partition has failed this whole island.  But my opinion is worth nothing unless I back it up with hard facts.  My unionist colleagues in work have no argument to the economic fact that NI is a public sector dependent basket case.  Where's Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, IBM, HP etc etc based in the north?  Nowhere is the answer.

Successive British governments and their policies here have helped make the north a basket case. That's why there's no sign of google or Apple up here.

Are google and Apple in RoI because they are successful economies or because they are tax rate whores? If uk lowered corporate tax or allowed a lower rate in NI would NI compete with RoI for these mobile firms?

Would Alabama be able to compete with California? As well as looking to make filthy profits, these companies are also eager to attract a talented workforce, so lifestyle and other factors are important too.
Are you suggesting that the talent pool and lifestyle is inferior in Belfast than say Cork or Galway?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: macdanger2 on May 08, 2019, 11:10:35 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 04:26:53 PM
Yeah, why do people go the bother of going to vote, then spoil their vote.

Makes no sense to me.  A complete waste of time.

I disagree, if 47% (even 5-10%) of the electorate spoiled their vote, it would send a message to the existing parties that the electorate wants something different. When you don't vote at all, it's much easier to say "they can't complain if they can't be arsed voting"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 02:49:41 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 08, 2019, 11:10:35 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 04:26:53 PM
Yeah, why do people go the bother of going to vote, then spoil their vote.

Makes no sense to me.  A complete waste of time.

I disagree, if 47% (even 5-10%) of the electorate spoiled their vote, it would send a message to the existing parties that the electorate wants something different. When you don't vote at all, it's much easier to say "they can't complain if they can't be arsed voting"

I would consider a spoiled vote to mean "I'm so incompetent I don't know how to fill in a ballot properly" rather than "I demand something different from the parties on this ballot."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on May 09, 2019, 03:05:58 AM
That would depend on how it's spoiled.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 06:54:19 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on May 09, 2019, 03:05:58 AM
That would depend on how it's spoiled.

"How it's spoiled" is seldom reported, all you usually hear is a brief mention of the number of spoiled ballots. Any "message" you want to send by spoiling your ballots is unlikely to be read by anyone outside of a counting centre. It's like the kid who writes on his GCSE exam paper about how "the school is crap and my teacher's crap and it's just not fair" rather than answering any questions. He still gets an F and only one person gets to see his desperate plea.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: macdanger2 on May 09, 2019, 09:20:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 02:49:41 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 08, 2019, 11:10:35 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 04:26:53 PM
Yeah, why do people go the bother of going to vote, then spoil their vote.

Makes no sense to me.  A complete waste of time.

I disagree, if 47% (even 5-10%) of the electorate spoiled their vote, it would send a message to the existing parties that the electorate wants something different. When you don't vote at all, it's much easier to say "they can't complain if they can't be arsed voting"

I would consider a spoiled vote to mean "I'm so incompetent I don't know how to fill in a ballot properly" rather than "I demand something different from the parties on this ballot."

You'd hardly still think that if it was ~10% of the vote after a publicised campaign?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 09, 2019, 09:32:03 AM
No matter how many votes get spoiled, deliberately or otherwise,  the valid votes will still elect people.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on May 09, 2019, 10:20:48 AM
Is 47% not voting not enough of a message rather than drawing a d**k on the ballot papers?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 09, 2019, 10:28:32 AM
What's the average turn out over say the last 5 elections in the North?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on May 09, 2019, 10:56:19 AM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on May 09, 2019, 10:20:48 AM
Is 47% not voting not enough of a message rather than drawing a d**k on the ballot papers?

It would be immaterial to the victor on the day, but should stimulate the other parties who failed to get elected to chase after the spoiled vote.

The only difference in drawing a díck on your ballot paper and not voting is that the person drawing the díck has shown a willingness to get involved in the process rather than be ambivalent and sit at home scratching their holes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on May 09, 2019, 12:02:31 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 11:03:55 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 08, 2019, 10:22:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:56:45 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 08, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on May 08, 2019, 09:00:10 PM
We need to get to a place where united Ireland vs the Union is not green vs orange ... for those who promote a UI, they need to show why it is better both culturally and economically.  Likewise, those who promote the status quo of the union, need to explain in great detail as to why the union is better.  Let's have that big discussion and see where it goes, it may take the next 10+ years to have it, but let's have it.  Just demanding one or the other blindly does not suffice.

IMO NI is a failed entity, Unionists have failed NI, partition has failed this whole island.  But my opinion is worth nothing unless I back it up with hard facts.  My unionist colleagues in work have no argument to the economic fact that NI is a public sector dependent basket case.  Where's Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, IBM, HP etc etc based in the north?  Nowhere is the answer.

Successive British governments and their policies here have helped make the north a basket case. That's why there's no sign of google or Apple up here.

Are google and Apple in RoI because they are successful economies or because they are tax rate whores? If uk lowered corporate tax or allowed a lower rate in NI would NI compete with RoI for these mobile firms?

Would Alabama be able to compete with California? As well as looking to make filthy profits, these companies are also eager to attract a talented workforce, so lifestyle and other factors are important too.
Are you suggesting that the talent pool and lifestyle is inferior in Belfast than say Cork or Galway?

Not really. These top tech brands attract global workforces and Dublin is a desirable location. Despite all the bitching and moaning we ourselves do, it's a top global city with a thriving tech scene. For the record, I strongly believe Belfast and the North will thrive in a United Ireland. It is not just about low Corp tax, it's about how you go about attracting international investment, tourism, how you make friends abroad and the like. For all our faults we have done a decent job.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on May 09, 2019, 12:04:08 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 09, 2019, 10:56:19 AM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on May 09, 2019, 10:20:48 AM
Is 47% not voting not enough of a message rather than drawing a d**k on the ballot papers?

It would be immaterial to the victor on the day, but should stimulate the other parties who failed to get elected to chase after the spoiled vote.

The only difference in drawing a díck on your ballot paper and not voting is that the person drawing the díck has shown a willingness to get involved in the process rather than be ambivalent and sit at home scratching their holes.

Correct IMO.

Had this debate before on here.

What's the alternative if you don't deem any of the candidates worth voting for?*

*smelmoth posts immediately telling me to vote Alliance anyway.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LooseCannon on May 09, 2019, 12:06:08 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on May 09, 2019, 10:20:48 AM
Is 47% not voting not enough of a message rather than drawing a d**k on the ballot papers?
There are people who have successfully appealed votes initially declared spoilt(ed) on account of a penis being drawn beside their name and their name only.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 09, 2019, 12:07:24 PM
Vote Alliance
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on May 09, 2019, 12:17:19 PM
Quote from: LooseCannon on May 09, 2019, 12:06:08 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on May 09, 2019, 10:20:48 AM
Is 47% not voting not enough of a message rather than drawing a d**k on the ballot papers?
There are people who have successfully appealed votes initially declared spoilt(ed) on account of a penis being drawn beside their name and their name only.
In other words Vote unionist
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 09, 2019, 12:43:10 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 08, 2019, 05:36:26 PM
On the whole 50+1 thing, unionists are simply going to have to like it or lump it. The thing is, things will never be as bad for them in a United Ireland as they were for nationalists in the northern state and therefore scaremongering of violence is pointless. Unionists will be welcomed into a United Ireland. Likewise anyone who wishes is welcome to move to Britain.

Going to have to lump it?
Anyone who wishes is welcome to move to Britain

The very definition of welcome. Does this fit with SF's shared space or shared future or is it completely at odds with political nationalism and political republicanism?
How will it work with continuing power sharing in NI within a united ireland?
Forget Sinn Fein for a moment if you can, it's *MY* view of a shared future.

I can't abide loyalists at the best of times, and I'm sure you can't either, whether you care to admit it or not. I'm at the stage now where I care less and less for them and their community. Ordinary decent Unionists I have no issue with, they should be always be accommodated and have their concerns addressed in any future unified state.

I'm not a politician, I don't have a blueprint of how loyalists are going to seamlessly fit into a UI because I don't give a rats arse about them. Hopefully they'll follow the example of Arlene (the leader of the party that does diddly squat for them but they vote for in their droves anyway) and make like a tree.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 02:51:38 PM
The buzz phrase seems to be "how unionists can be accommodated in a United ireland". What does that even mean?

Everyone will equally have access to education, healthcare, benefits, roads, etc. Everyday life will roll on. School, work, pub, walk the dog, watch telly etc. They'll do the same daily things as everyone else.

The only thing that is different about unionists from nationalists is their culture. They'll still fly their union flag and swear allegiance to Lizzie, Willy or baby Archie or whoever. They'll still want to march and light bonfires. They already play the "our culture is being eroded" card in the north under the uk. They haven't walked the Garvaghy Road in 20 years. Will part of this "accommodating unionists in a UI" thing mean they'll get to march down it again?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 08:41:30 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 09, 2019, 09:20:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 02:49:41 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 08, 2019, 11:10:35 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 04:26:53 PM
Yeah, why do people go the bother of going to vote, then spoil their vote.

Makes no sense to me.  A complete waste of time.

I disagree, if 47% (even 5-10%) of the electorate spoiled their vote, it would send a message to the existing parties that the electorate wants something different. When you don't vote at all, it's much easier to say "they can't complain if they can't be arsed voting"

I would consider a spoiled vote to mean "I'm so incompetent I don't know how to fill in a ballot properly" rather than "I demand something different from the parties on this ballot."

You'd hardly still think that if it was ~10% of the vote after a publicised campaign?
If you want to campaign for a specific outcome, it's customary to run a candidate.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 08:49:40 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 02:51:38 PM
The buzz phrase seems to be "how unionists can be accommodated in a United ireland". What does that even mean?

Everyone will equally have access to education, healthcare, benefits, roads, etc. Everyday life will roll on. School, work, pub, walk the dog, watch telly etc. They'll do the same daily things as everyone else.

The only thing that is different about unionists from nationalists is their culture. They'll still fly their union flag and swear allegiance to Lizzie, Willy or baby Archie or whoever. They'll still want to march and light bonfires. They already play the "our culture is being eroded" card in the north under the uk. They haven't walked the Garvaghy Road in 20 years. Will part of this "accommodating unionists in a UI" thing mean they'll get to march down it again?

Good questions.

I take it to mean, how can the structures of government in the north reflect the fact that there are a million people in there who have a somewhat different view of Britain than the people of the rest of the island? I'd be all in favour of a watered down Hong Kong / Macau situation where the north is governed as a "Special Administrative Region" after partition. Instead of restoring six county councils, let Stormont take on the same responsibilities as county councils. And if Stormont were to be scrapped and the north fully integrated with the rest of the island, require a two-thirds majority in the north to approve such an arrangement.

To your point about marches, I'd prefer it if the lodges could drop the sectarianism and become some sort of benevolent organizations that work to overcome division rather than celebrate it. By all means carry a union jack and celebrate your British citizenship and your protestant values, but cut out the political lobbying and drop the anti-catholic rules from your rule book. You might stand a better chance of marching in such a way that you'd be welcome in catholic areas if you're not perceived as a hostile outside force.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 08:53:39 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 09, 2019, 12:02:31 PM

Not really. These top tech brands attract global workforces and Dublin is a desirable location. Despite all the bitching and moaning we ourselves do, it's a top global city with a thriving tech scene. For the record, I strongly believe Belfast and the North will thrive in a United Ireland. It is not just about low Corp tax, it's about how you go about attracting international investment, tourism, how you make friends abroad and the like. For all our faults we have done a decent job.

There's a lot of truth in that. Have you been reading David McWilliams' stuff? He talks about the restaurant count. Towns in the north have a far lower number of restaurants than towns with equivalent populations in the south. And he has all sorts of other measures for how the south is just a far more dynamic and competitive economy than the north. The tax haven stuff is only part of it. There's plenty of other tax havens in the world, but Silicon Valley doesn't generally look to the Caymen Islands if it wants to set up the next big R&D centre that needs an educated Anglophone workforce.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 09, 2019, 08:56:51 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 09, 2019, 12:43:10 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 08, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 08, 2019, 05:36:26 PM
On the whole 50+1 thing, unionists are simply going to have to like it or lump it. The thing is, things will never be as bad for them in a United Ireland as they were for nationalists in the northern state and therefore scaremongering of violence is pointless. Unionists will be welcomed into a United Ireland. Likewise anyone who wishes is welcome to move to Britain.

Going to have to lump it?
Anyone who wishes is welcome to move to Britain

The very definition of welcome. Does this fit with SF's shared space or shared future or is it completely at odds with political nationalism and political republicanism?
How will it work with continuing power sharing in NI within a united ireland?
Forget Sinn Fein for a moment if you can, it's *MY* view of a shared future.

I can't abide loyalists at the best of times, and I'm sure you can't either, whether you care to admit it or not. I'm at the stage now where I care less and less for them and their community. Ordinary decent Unionists I have no issue with, they should be always be accommodated and have their concerns addressed in any future unified state.

I'm not a politician, I don't have a blueprint of how loyalists are going to seamlessly fit into a UI because I don't give a rats arse about them. Hopefully they'll follow the example of Arlene (the leader of the party that does diddly squat for them but they vote for in their droves anyway) and make like a tree.

The loyalist vs unionist distinction is interesting. Likewise republican vs nationalist.

I'm sure you get the point that in a United Ireland unionists and loyalists will still be voting in a devolved NI with power sharing at stormont and likely mayoral rotations at LG level
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 09, 2019, 08:59:33 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 08:49:40 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 02:51:38 PM
The buzz phrase seems to be "how unionists can be accommodated in a United ireland". What does that even mean?

Everyone will equally have access to education, healthcare, benefits, roads, etc. Everyday life will roll on. School, work, pub, walk the dog, watch telly etc. They'll do the same daily things as everyone else.

The only thing that is different about unionists from nationalists is their culture. They'll still fly their union flag and swear allegiance to Lizzie, Willy or baby Archie or whoever. They'll still want to march and light bonfires. They already play the "our culture is being eroded" card in the north under the uk. They haven't walked the Garvaghy Road in 20 years. Will part of this "accommodating unionists in a UI" thing mean they'll get to march down it again?

Good questions.

I take it to mean, how can the structures of government in the north reflect the fact that there are a million people in there who have a somewhat different view of Britain than the people of the rest of the island? I'd be all in favour of a watered down Hong Kong / Macau situation where the north is governed as a "Special Administrative Region" after partition. Instead of restoring six county councils, let Stormont take on the same responsibilities as county councils. And if Stormont were to be scrapped and the north fully integrated with the rest of the island, require a two-thirds majority in the north to approve such an arrangement.

To your point about marches, I'd prefer it if the lodges could drop the sectarianism and become some sort of benevolent organizations that work to overcome division rather than celebrate it. By all means carry a union jack and celebrate your British citizenship and your protestant values, but cut out the political lobbying and drop the anti-catholic rules from your rule book. You might stand a better chance of marching in such a way that you'd be welcome in catholic areas if you're not perceived as a hostile outside force.

Stormont and power sharing will continue. Can't see London agreeing to anything else
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: macdanger2 on May 09, 2019, 09:07:01 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 08:41:30 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 09, 2019, 09:20:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 02:49:41 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 08, 2019, 11:10:35 PM
Quote from: marty34 on May 06, 2019, 04:26:53 PM
Yeah, why do people go the bother of going to vote, then spoil their vote.

Makes no sense to me.  A complete waste of time.

I disagree, if 47% (even 5-10%) of the electorate spoiled their vote, it would send a message to the existing parties that the electorate wants something different. When you don't vote at all, it's much easier to say "they can't complain if they can't be arsed voting"

I would consider a spoiled vote to mean "I'm so incompetent I don't know how to fill in a ballot properly" rather than "I demand something different from the parties on this ballot."

You'd hardly still think that if it was ~10% of the vote after a publicised campaign?
If you want to campaign for a specific outcome, it's customary to run a candidate.

But if 10% of the vote was spoiled, wouldn't you get the point that those people  "demand something different from the parties on this ballot."?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 11:16:02 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 09, 2019, 08:59:33 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 08:49:40 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 02:51:38 PM
The buzz phrase seems to be "how unionists can be accommodated in a United ireland". What does that even mean?

Everyone will equally have access to education, healthcare, benefits, roads, etc. Everyday life will roll on. School, work, pub, walk the dog, watch telly etc. They'll do the same daily things as everyone else.

The only thing that is different about unionists from nationalists is their culture. They'll still fly their union flag and swear allegiance to Lizzie, Willy or baby Archie or whoever. They'll still want to march and light bonfires. They already play the "our culture is being eroded" card in the north under the uk. They haven't walked the Garvaghy Road in 20 years. Will part of this "accommodating unionists in a UI" thing mean they'll get to march down it again?

Good questions.

I take it to mean, how can the structures of government in the north reflect the fact that there are a million people in there who have a somewhat different view of Britain than the people of the rest of the island? I'd be all in favour of a watered down Hong Kong / Macau situation where the north is governed as a "Special Administrative Region" after partition. Instead of restoring six county councils, let Stormont take on the same responsibilities as county councils. And if Stormont were to be scrapped and the north fully integrated with the rest of the island, require a two-thirds majority in the north to approve such an arrangement.

To your point about marches, I'd prefer it if the lodges could drop the sectarianism and become some sort of benevolent organizations that work to overcome division rather than celebrate it. By all means carry a union jack and celebrate your British citizenship and your protestant values, but cut out the political lobbying and drop the anti-catholic rules from your rule book. You might stand a better chance of marching in such a way that you'd be welcome in catholic areas if you're not perceived as a hostile outside force.

Stormont and power sharing will continue. Can't see London agreeing to anything else

That's not really a United ireland though is it? If Dublin approves say, grants for school PE gear to each family, but Stormont says no, the 6 counties will still be treated differently to the 26. That's still partition in my eyes.

The fact that any decision for people in the 6 counties has to be passed by a unionist dominated government, is no different to what we have now.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 09, 2019, 11:24:14 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 11:16:02 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 09, 2019, 08:59:33 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 08:49:40 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 02:51:38 PM
The buzz phrase seems to be "how unionists can be accommodated in a United ireland". What does that even mean?

Everyone will equally have access to education, healthcare, benefits, roads, etc. Everyday life will roll on. School, work, pub, walk the dog, watch telly etc. They'll do the same daily things as everyone else.

The only thing that is different about unionists from nationalists is their culture. They'll still fly their union flag and swear allegiance to Lizzie, Willy or baby Archie or whoever. They'll still want to march and light bonfires. They already play the "our culture is being eroded" card in the north under the uk. They haven't walked the Garvaghy Road in 20 years. Will part of this "accommodating unionists in a UI" thing mean they'll get to march down it again?

Good questions.

I take it to mean, how can the structures of government in the north reflect the fact that there are a million people in there who have a somewhat different view of Britain than the people of the rest of the island? I'd be all in favour of a watered down Hong Kong / Macau situation where the north is governed as a "Special Administrative Region" after partition. Instead of restoring six county councils, let Stormont take on the same responsibilities as county councils. And if Stormont were to be scrapped and the north fully integrated with the rest of the island, require a two-thirds majority in the north to approve such an arrangement.

To your point about marches, I'd prefer it if the lodges could drop the sectarianism and become some sort of benevolent organizations that work to overcome division rather than celebrate it. By all means carry a union jack and celebrate your British citizenship and your protestant values, but cut out the political lobbying and drop the anti-catholic rules from your rule book. You might stand a better chance of marching in such a way that you'd be welcome in catholic areas if you're not perceived as a hostile outside force.

Stormont and power sharing will continue. Can't see London agreeing to anything else

That's not really a United ireland though is it? If Dublin approves say, grants for school PE gear to each family, but Stormont says no, the 6 counties will still be treated differently to the 26. That's still partition in my eyes.

The fact that any decision for people in the 6 counties has to be passed by a unionist dominated government, is no different to what we have now.

Well it's not the United Ireland SF are talking about but that is their fundamental dishonesty

The only UI possible is one with devolution to NI and power sharing within a devolved assembly
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on May 09, 2019, 11:31:03 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 02:51:38 PM
The buzz phrase seems to be "how unionists can be accommodated in a United ireland". What does that even mean?

Everyone will equally have access to education, healthcare, benefits, roads, etc. Everyday life will roll on. School, work, pub, walk the dog, watch telly etc. They'll do the same daily things as everyone else.

The only thing that is different about unionists from nationalists is their culture. They'll still fly their union flag and swear allegiance to Lizzie, Willy or baby Archie or whoever. They'll still want to march and light bonfires. They already play the "our culture is being eroded" card in the north under the uk. They haven't walked the Garvaghy Road in 20 years. Will part of this "accommodating unionists in a UI" thing mean they'll get to march down it again?

I seriously doubt it.

However, I would assume that we from the Gaelic background would have to accept a watering down of the symbols of the Republic in a united Ireland. I would think the tricolour and Amhran na bhFiann would go, as would titles like The Dail and Taoiseach and so on.

Do unionists celebrate Paddy's Day? Would they insist on the 12th being made a holiday?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 11:39:58 PM
Some do, but St Patrick's Day has been hijacked by tricolours and Celtic shirts, so its understandable why a lot of unionists don't celebrate it.

The danger is to water down so much of Irish culture and history that we turn into Switzerland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 09, 2019, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 09, 2019, 11:31:03 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 02:51:38 PM
The buzz phrase seems to be "how unionists can be accommodated in a United ireland". What does that even mean?

Everyone will equally have access to education, healthcare, benefits, roads, etc. Everyday life will roll on. School, work, pub, walk the dog, watch telly etc. They'll do the same daily things as everyone else.

The only thing that is different about unionists from nationalists is their culture. They'll still fly their union flag and swear allegiance to Lizzie, Willy or baby Archie or whoever. They'll still want to march and light bonfires. They already play the "our culture is being eroded" card in the north under the uk. They haven't walked the Garvaghy Road in 20 years. Will part of this "accommodating unionists in a UI" thing mean they'll get to march down it again?

I seriously doubt it.

However, I would assume that we from the Gaelic background would have to accept a watering down of the symbols of the Republic in a united Ireland. I would think the tricolour and Amhran na bhFiann would go, as would titles like The Dail and Taoiseach and so on.

Do unionists celebrate Paddy's Day? Would they insist on the 12th being made a holiday?

A minority in NI "celebrate" Paddy's day as a minority celebrate the 12th. A majority enjoy a bank holiday on both. The July bank holiday would continue in NI. Hard to guess what the south would do in a UI scenario
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 10, 2019, 12:59:12 AM
Quote
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 11:16:02 PM

Stormont and power sharing will continue. Can't see London agreeing to anything else

That's not really a United ireland though is it? If Dublin approves say, grants for school PE gear to each family, but Stormont says no, the 6 counties will still be treated differently to the 26. That's still partition in my eyes.

The fact that any decision for people in the 6 counties has to be passed by a unionist dominated government, is no different to what we have now.
Is it? There's about 29 county-level local government entities in the south. Is the south partitioned?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on May 10, 2019, 02:16:02 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 09, 2019, 06:54:19 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on May 09, 2019, 03:05:58 AM
That would depend on how it's spoiled.

"How it's spoiled" is seldom reported, all you usually hear is a brief mention of the number of spoiled ballots. Any "message" you want to send by spoiling your ballots is unlikely to be read by anyone outside of a counting centre. It's like the kid who writes on his GCSE exam paper about how "the school is crap and my teacher's crap and it's just not fair" rather than answering any questions. He still gets an F and only one person gets to see his desperate plea.

None of this is relevant to anything.  You said that you would consider a spoiled vote a mark of incompetence.  Whether you're right in that verdict would depend on how/why that person spoiled their vote. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 10, 2019, 12:59:12 AM
Quote
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 11:16:02 PM

Stormont and power sharing will continue. Can't see London agreeing to anything else

That's not really a United ireland though is it? If Dublin approves say, grants for school PE gear to each family, but Stormont says no, the 6 counties will still be treated differently to the 26. That's still partition in my eyes.

The fact that any decision for people in the 6 counties has to be passed by a unionist dominated government, is no different to what we have now.
Is it? There's about 29 county-level local government entities in the south. Is the south partitioned?
Surely Unionists will be a minority in the "North Eastern Autonomous area" when the Independent Irish Confederation comes about.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 10, 2019, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 10, 2019, 12:59:12 AM
Quote
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 11:16:02 PM

Stormont and power sharing will continue. Can't see London agreeing to anything else

That's not really a United ireland though is it? If Dublin approves say, grants for school PE gear to each family, but Stormont says no, the 6 counties will still be treated differently to the 26. That's still partition in my eyes.

The fact that any decision for people in the 6 counties has to be passed by a unionist dominated government, is no different to what we have now.
Is it? There's about 29 county-level local government entities in the south. Is the south partitioned?
Surely Unionists will be a minority in the "North Eastern Autonomous area" when the Independent Irish Confederation comes about.

I think unionists would get a hell of a lot in a United Ireland. Dublin would bend over backwards to show that unionists can still do this, that and the other. They'd be funded left and right for their cultural stuff, and they would rip the arse out of it constantly testing this new independent country on how they treat the minority. Any denial of a March or Orange funding, by this NE executive, they'd go crying to Dublin like they go crying to London now.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 10:58:17 AM
Hopefully the new Confederation's Capital will be in Athlone (or Armagh).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on May 10, 2019, 12:43:44 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 10, 2019, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 10, 2019, 12:59:12 AM
Quote
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 11:16:02 PM

Stormont and power sharing will continue. Can't see London agreeing to anything else

That's not really a United ireland though is it? If Dublin approves say, grants for school PE gear to each family, but Stormont says no, the 6 counties will still be treated differently to the 26. That's still partition in my eyes.

The fact that any decision for people in the 6 counties has to be passed by a unionist dominated government, is no different to what we have now.
Is it? There's about 29 county-level local government entities in the south. Is the south partitioned?
Surely Unionists will be a minority in the "North Eastern Autonomous area" when the Independent Irish Confederation comes about.

I think unionists would get a hell of a lot in a United Ireland. Dublin would bend over backwards to show that unionists can still do this, that and the other. They'd be funded left and right for their cultural stuff, and they would rip the arse out of it constantly testing this new independent country on how they treat the minority. Any denial of a March or Orange funding, by this NE executive, they'd go crying to Dublin like they go crying to London now.

I'm sure the OO in parts of Donegal already are funded by the Irish government. I imagine the battle site at the boyne received grants etc. Someone will know the full facts. No reason if this is the case that funding won't continue in a UI.
Unionism and it's traditions whether you agree or disagree with them will have to be accommodated.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 10, 2019, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 10, 2019, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 10, 2019, 12:59:12 AM
Quote
Quote from: BennyCake on May 09, 2019, 11:16:02 PM

Stormont and power sharing will continue. Can't see London agreeing to anything else

That's not really a United ireland though is it? If Dublin approves say, grants for school PE gear to each family, but Stormont says no, the 6 counties will still be treated differently to the 26. That's still partition in my eyes.

The fact that any decision for people in the 6 counties has to be passed by a unionist dominated government, is no different to what we have now.
Is it? There's about 29 county-level local government entities in the south. Is the south partitioned?
Surely Unionists will be a minority in the "North Eastern Autonomous area" when the Independent Irish Confederation comes about.

I think unionists would get a hell of a lot in a United Ireland. Dublin would bend over backwards to show that unionists can still do this, that and the other. They'd be funded left and right for their cultural stuff, and they would rip the arse out of it constantly testing this new independent country on how they treat the minority. Any denial of a March or Orange funding, by this NE executive, they'd go crying to Dublin like they go crying to London now.

It's the only version of a UI on offer.

Remember when SF say GFA is a roadmap to a UI it is this version of a UI

When anybody else argues for a UI it is this that they are arguing for or they have a fundamental misunderstanding of GFA
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 12:56:58 PM
Some probably think it'll be a case of the 6 Cos being incorporated into the existing 26 Co State with Tri colour and Amhrán na bhFiann.
Others seem to think it will be a State for Nationalists only and give the Unionists back what they gave from 1922-72.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 10, 2019, 01:03:40 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 12:56:58 PM
Some probably think it'll be a case of the 6 Cos being incorporated into the existing 26 Co State with Tri colour and Amhrán na bhFiann.
Others seem to think it will be a State for Nationalists only and give the Unionists back what they gave from 1922-72.

There certainly are people who think that. SF encourage them to think that way and DUP are happy to watch it. It's the perfect scenario for DUP ie SF flog an unachieveable dream and some unionists believe the bogeyman version of a UI and maintain their blinkered stance
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on May 10, 2019, 01:09:05 PM
There was plenty of heated, irrational and emotional debate on this very board in the mid-00s over the trivial issue of Ireland's Call at rugby matches.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 04:15:04 PM
The OO is already funded left, right and centre as are the hundreds of flute bands that stomp the streets every summer. I would not want that to change in a united Ireland. What I would expect to change would be the flag and anthem, though I don't ever see there ever being any consensus there. Ulster Scots should also be looked after, in line with whatever demand there is to support it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 10, 2019, 05:28:23 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 04:15:04 PM
The OO is already funded left, right and centre as are the hundreds of flute bands that stomp the streets every summer. I would not want that to change in a united Ireland. What I would expect to change would be the flag and anthem, though I don't ever see there ever being any consensus there. Ulster Scots should also be looked after, in line with whatever demand there is to support it

What's the point? New anthem and flag, Unionists will recognise neither because they won't be in the union no more. Accepting those two things goes against everything a unionist stands for.

In the same way that nationalists wouldn't recognise a new flag and anthem for NI because it goes against everything they stand for.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 10, 2019, 05:28:23 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 04:15:04 PM
The OO is already funded left, right and centre as are the hundreds of flute bands that stomp the streets every summer. I would not want that to change in a united Ireland. What I would expect to change would be the flag and anthem, though I don't ever see there ever being any consensus there. Ulster Scots should also be looked after, in line with whatever demand there is to support it

What's the point? New anthem and flag, Unionists will recognise neither because they won't be in the union no more. Accepting those two things goes against everything a unionist stands for.

In the same way that nationalists wouldn't recognise a new flag and anthem for NI because it goes against everything they stand for.
The point is accommodating unionists. I know fine rightly a lot of them won't like it, and they're welcome to move to Britain if it is that unbearable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on May 10, 2019, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
I know fine rightly a lot of them won't like it, and they're welcome to move to Britain if it is that unbearable.

Should that have been the attitude of Unionists towards nationalists?

"You're welcome to move down south if you find Northern Ireland so unbearable."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 06:05:01 PM
It was wasn't it?
A new All Ireland State = a new flag and anthem.
Probably  a Green flag with a red X on it  and "Our lovely Island" as the anthem.
A popular vote/plebiscite to decide.

If a minority in the North Eastern Area don't like the chosen flag and anthem....they're entitled to their opinion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on May 10, 2019, 06:47:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 06:05:01 PM
It was wasn't it?
A new All Ireland State = a new flag and anthem.
Probably  a Green flag with a red X on it

Ah Jaysus a green and red flag, let's not go to ridiculous extremes here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on May 10, 2019, 06:59:47 PM
Quote from: dec on May 10, 2019, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
I know fine rightly a lot of them won't like it, and they're welcome to move to Britain if it is that unbearable.

Should that have been the attitude of Unionists towards nationalists?

"You're welcome to move down south if you find Northern Ireland so unbearable."

That kind of is the attitude in the more hardline ones...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 07:29:48 PM
Quote from: weareros on May 10, 2019, 06:47:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2019, 06:05:01 PM
It was wasn't it?
A new All Ireland State = a new flag and anthem.
Probably  a Green flag with a red X on it

Ah Jaysus a green and red flag, let's not go to ridiculous extremes here.

:D :D :)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: dec on May 10, 2019, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
I know fine rightly a lot of them won't like it, and they're welcome to move to Britain if it is that unbearable.

Should that have been the attitude of Unionists towards nationalists?

"You're welcome to move down south if you find Northern Ireland so unbearable."
Well the thing is, many people from the north *did* move, many were forced to do so.  That was and still is the attitude among some of the more loyal citizens in NI today. Luckily, Unionists will never have to face what Irish nationalists endured back when they ran the show in the north. So if they don't like the democracy the option to flourish in post-brexit Britain is always there for them
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 10, 2019, 08:39:52 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 10, 2019, 05:28:23 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 04:15:04 PM
The OO is already funded left, right and centre as are the hundreds of flute bands that stomp the streets every summer. I would not want that to change in a united Ireland. What I would expect to change would be the flag and anthem, though I don't ever see there ever being any consensus there. Ulster Scots should also be looked after, in line with whatever demand there is to support it

What's the point? New anthem and flag, Unionists will recognise neither because they won't be in the union no more. Accepting those two things goes against everything a unionist stands for.

In the same way that nationalists wouldn't recognise a new flag and anthem for NI because it goes against everything they stand for.

A UI is definitely a difficult and nuanced proposition. Difficulties and nuances that it's proponents will have to navigate and master to win the day
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 10, 2019, 08:43:08 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 10, 2019, 05:28:23 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 04:15:04 PM
The OO is already funded left, right and centre as are the hundreds of flute bands that stomp the streets every summer. I would not want that to change in a united Ireland. What I would expect to change would be the flag and anthem, though I don't ever see there ever being any consensus there. Ulster Scots should also be looked after, in line with whatever demand there is to support it

What's the point? New anthem and flag, Unionists will recognise neither because they won't be in the union no more. Accepting those two things goes against everything a unionist stands for.

In the same way that nationalists wouldn't recognise a new flag and anthem for NI because it goes against everything they stand for.
The point is accommodating unionists. I know fine rightly a lot of them won't like it, and they're welcome to move to Britain if it is that unbearable.
Presumably all the nationalists and republicans who stayed in NI found it quite pleasant?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on May 10, 2019, 08:46:40 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: dec on May 10, 2019, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
I know fine rightly a lot of them won't like it, and they're welcome to move to Britain if it is that unbearable.

Should that have been the attitude of Unionists towards nationalists?

"You're welcome to move down south if you find Northern Ireland so unbearable."
Well the thing is, many people from the north *did* move, many were forced to do so.  That was and still is the attitude among some of the more loyal citizens in NI today. Luckily, Unionists will never have to face what Irish nationalists endured back when they ran the show in the north. So if they don't like the democracy the option to flourish in post-brexit Britain is always there for them
I will agree that some were forced but a tiny fraction. The majority who left NI left for the same reason as they left RoI and the poorer regions of Europe

The rest of your "free to leave" rhetoric I will leave to those indulging in Orbanesque politics
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on August 13, 2019, 08:15:16 PM
From Belfast Telegraph.........

Bernadette McAliskey: 'Who in their right mind would vote to join the Free State?'

August 13 2019

Veteran civil rights campaigner and former MP Bernadette McAliskey has questioned "Who in their right mind who right mind in a border poll would vote to join the Free State?"

Ms McAliskey made the comments at event in Londonderry on Monday night marking the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Bogside in August 1969, when three days of rioting led to the start of Operation Banner.

Bernadette McAliskey was one of those involved in the events of August 1969.

Speaking on Monday night alongside fellow campaigner Eamonn McCann, Ms McAliskey warned people across the island of Ireland "need to get out of the nationalist conversation".

She said that there was no "progressive nationalist agenda on this island at this time".

"Who in their right mind in a border poll would vote to join the Free State?" she added.

Bernadette McAliskey said the lesson from 1969 was that "spontaneity needed to be planned for".

"I don't think there's any point in remembering or commemorating other than to learn from the past what we can do in the present to shape the future," she said.

In recent months calls for a border poll from Sinn Fein have increased, with the party's leader Mary Lou McDonald stating it would be "unthinkable" if a poll was not called in the wake of a no-deal Brexit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 14, 2019, 01:23:15 AM
So Bernie is happy to keep part of Ireland under British Rule?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on August 14, 2019, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 14, 2019, 01:23:15 AM
So Bernie is happy to keep part of Ireland under British Rule?

Weighing her opinion and your disrespectful attempt at sarcasm, it is not difficult to know which side most informed people will take cognisance of.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 14, 2019, 03:01:22 PM
Could you translate please?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on August 14, 2019, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 14, 2019, 03:01:22 PM
Could you translate please?

Precisely my point!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Solo_run on August 15, 2019, 01:51:28 PM
Quote

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

Start charging those who get drunk at the weekend and require an ambulance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on August 15, 2019, 01:53:50 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

No self respecting GP should be giving them out but a minimal fee might stop some people from clogging up waiting rooms asking for them.

I've known people to get paracetamol, sudocream and the likes on prescription when they're cheap as chips to buy anyway.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: t_mac on August 15, 2019, 01:57:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

Bring back charging for prescriptions for those in employment.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on August 15, 2019, 01:59:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

I agree - £5 for each visit for U50's say. I remembering being with doctors last year and there was stats up on an electronic board in reception stating how many people missed appointments in that particular clinic last year.  I can't remember the figure but I remember thinking, that's crazy.  Some waste of money there if replicated in every surgery.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: t_mac on August 15, 2019, 02:06:25 PM
You miss an appointment at a dentist you get charged, though in saying that - I have sat and waited over 45 minutes after my appointment time at a doctors, and know an older man who couldnt get parked because of roadworks and when he got in he was 3 minutes late and the doctor refused to see him as he missed his appointment!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on August 15, 2019, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 15, 2019, 01:57:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

Bring back charging for prescriptions for those in employment.

People are paying enough.

Why should ordinary folk be now charged to help pay for inept tossers in government who can't balance their books?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on August 15, 2019, 03:01:18 PM
Quote from: marty34 on August 15, 2019, 01:59:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

I agree - £5 for each visit for U50's say. I remembering being with doctors last year and there was stats up on an electronic board in reception stating how many people missed appointments in that particular clinic last year.  I can't remember the figure but I remember thinking, that's crazy.  Some waste of money there if replicated in every surgery.

Yes, well i agree with charging for missed appointments. Next time they ring up for one, tell them the doctor won't be seeing you until you settle your bill.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: t_mac on August 15, 2019, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 15, 2019, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 15, 2019, 01:57:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

Bring back charging for prescriptions for those in employment.

People are paying enough.

Why should ordinary folk be now charged to help pay for inept t**sers in government who can't balance their books?

It was said in the context of paying to see a doctor, ditto in bold if one had to pay for each antibiotic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: t_mac on August 15, 2019, 03:07:04 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 15, 2019, 03:01:18 PM
Quote from: marty34 on August 15, 2019, 01:59:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

I agree - £5 for each visit for U50's say. I remembering being with doctors last year and there was stats up on an electronic board in reception stating how many people missed appointments in that particular clinic last year.  I can't remember the figure but I remember thinking, that's crazy.  Some waste of money there if replicated in every surgery.

Yes, well i agree with charging for missed appointments. Next time they ring up for one, tell them the doctor won't be seeing you until you settle your bill.

And can you claim if your appointment is late, like flights, people very readily accept sitting for hours in a waiting room past their appointment time as some gobshite is in wasting the doctors time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on August 15, 2019, 04:18:44 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 15, 2019, 03:07:04 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 15, 2019, 03:01:18 PM
Quote from: marty34 on August 15, 2019, 01:59:17 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 15, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 14, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 14, 2019, 06:53:08 PM
I suspect her opinion originates with the pro business economic model in the South and radiates from there. Homelessness and the state of the Health Service in the South probably confound her opinion. Im guessing she probably doesnt have a good gauge of the severity of the present homelessness problem across the developed World.

I dont think she is typical of a sizable section of middle class Catholics who are unionist when it comes to sovereignty. Typically they are more worried about firstly their pensions and secondly distancing themselves from Republicanism which they see as undignified and lacking IQ. Tho the weak pound and immigration controls could affect their holidays on the continent could begin to influence their opinion.

In short Bernie has her opinion but its only that, her politics would not appeal to the the unionist leaning Catholics nor the left wingers as the vast majority are Sinn bots, even more so as when it comes to sovereignty its the glue that keeps them together.

There would never be a united Ireland if the ROI had not made itself prosperous with a pro business model. Homelessness does reflect poorly on the Irish government, but it is largely because people want to live in the 26 counties, there is less in places like Derry because people move away. As for the health service, the limitations of the 26 county health service are rightly publicised, but people live longer in the 26 counties and things like cancer survival rates are noticeably better. If anyone thinks the health service is not a reason for unity then they are very ignorant. Even this week, ambulances from the south have had to be based in Derry and Newry as there aren't enough locally.

McAliskey is like the Shinners, eloquent on how money should be spent, while silent on how the money is to be made in order to have some to spend. It is essentially teenage politics and as you said this low IQ politics puts middle of the ground people off.

It's more the perception that the South s health service is bad and that you have to pay for it.

But yes knowing/idealizing  how to spend money is simple but knowing how to raise it is the real trick. In saying that tho, being constrained and consequently proped up by London is no healthy or sustainable state of affairs either.
The UK NHS is in crisis and it is unlikely to continue in the same model, free at the point of delivery. Brexit quite likely will be the final nail. A hybrid system such as the South's is coming down the tracks at people currently under 40. at the very least charges for prescriptions and GP visits are inevitable in the course of the next few years.

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

I agree - £5 for each visit for U50's say. I remembering being with doctors last year and there was stats up on an electronic board in reception stating how many people missed appointments in that particular clinic last year.  I can't remember the figure but I remember thinking, that's crazy.  Some waste of money there if replicated in every surgery.

Yes, well i agree with charging for missed appointments. Next time they ring up for one, tell them the doctor won't be seeing you until you settle your bill.

And can you claim if your appointment is late, like flights, people very readily accept sitting for hours in a waiting room past their appointment time as some gobshite is in wasting the doctors time.

I think it was more a case of people booking appointments, then not turning up iirc.  Loads of people needing an appointment, but time slots were booked, but then nobody turning up.

A simple issue like this of charging, not making money but just cost and more importantly, time effective.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Owen Brannigan on August 15, 2019, 04:35:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 15, 2019, 01:14:11 PM

Big fan of the NHS but I do think some sort of nominal charge for a GP visit should be applied, if only to root out the timewasters.

Stick in some sort of clause whereby you didn't pay more for multiple visits for the same condition (on the Doctor's say-so).

There are a serious amount of people who wouldn't actually need an antibiotic for a head cold if they had to pay a tenner for it.

Same here. Despite the doom mongers the NHS in N.Ireland does an unbelievable job.

The problem that has developed is that people are so used to feeling entitled to everything being free that they now want no restriction on provision. An example is free prescriptions, there needs to be a restriction on what can be prescribed for free and those who can pay should make some contribution to at least pay for the prescription charges. 

The waste in prescribing is an on-going and uncontrolled issue. Also the waste in items that can be reused is an issue, e.g. crutches, moon boots, zimmer frames, rollators, etc are all non-returnable or collected for recycling as scrap metal rather than re-use.

Missed appointments are the major cost to the NHS and severely decrease its efficiency. They play an important part in keeping waiting list longer as doctors are left sitting doing nothing during planned clinical sessions that can never be recovered. Those who miss appointments should face a penalty to make major inroads. All clinics and doctors' surgeries are now showing the number of missed appointments and they are a concern.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on August 15, 2019, 05:00:24 PM
Sure there was talk of bringing in a nominal prescription charge to try and weed out people taking the piss but when they looked at it they saw it couldn't work because the administration of it would cost more than the money it would bring in!

I'm guessing it's likewise with a charge to see the doctor. If you had to pay a tenner you would soon see GP surgeries clear out and waiting lists disappear!!

THe problem is though how do you decide who the most vulnerable are who should get it for free. The govt have made a complete mess of universal credit I don't see how they can't c**k this one up as well!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 15, 2019, 05:04:03 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on August 15, 2019, 04:35:52 PM


The waste in prescribing is an on-going and uncontrolled issue. Also the waste in items that can be reused is an issue, e.g. crutches, moon boots, zimmer frames, rollators, etc are all non-returnable or collected for recycling as scrap metal rather than re-use.

Shocking that these cannot be re-used, but even if NI does not want them they should not go to recycling but to Syria or someplace.


Quote
Missed appointments are the major cost to the NHS and severely decrease its efficiency. They play an important part in keeping waiting list longer as doctors are left sitting doing nothing during planned clinical sessions that can never be recovered. Those who miss appointments should face a penalty to make major inroads. All clinics and doctors' surgeries are now showing the number of missed appointments and they are a concern.

The flip side of this that they need to embrace technology at all venues and ensure reminders and automatic calendar entries etc. Even if they are running late they could notify you and tell you to come in 20mins rather than making you sit around pointlessly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on August 15, 2019, 05:09:34 PM
The free at point of service is a rallying call for Corbyn. IT will run the NHS into the ground

One free appointment per year for checkup and a charge if you need additional. U13 and O60 obviously should be given more/completely free. Would be a good starting point

As for antibiotics dont get me started, if you take a sick wean to the doctor they'll tell you its a virus and then proceed to superscribe antibiotics!!! 7 years trainng for that... WTF
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Denn Forever on August 15, 2019, 05:34:18 PM
I thought antibiotics didn't work on Viruses.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mossy Bruce on August 15, 2019, 09:03:05 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on August 15, 2019, 05:34:18 PM
I thought antibiotics didn't work on Viruses.
Exactly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on August 16, 2019, 09:22:54 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 15, 2019, 05:09:34 PM
The free at point of service is a rallying call for Corbyn. IT will run the NHS into the ground

One free appointment per year for checkup and a charge if you need additional. U13 and O60 obviously should be given more/completely free. Would be a good starting point

As for antibiotics dont get me started, if you take a sick wean to the doctor they'll tell you its a virus and then proceed to superscribe antibiotics!!! 7 years trainng for that... WTF
Bullshit and disingenuous, GP's train for 4 years after graduation and none of us would put up with the crap they have to go through to get there. I have never met a GP yet who would dish out unwarranted Ab's. There is a shortage of GP's for very obvious reasons.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: t_mac on August 16, 2019, 10:15:53 AM
In my surgery they have left a prescription at reception for antibiotics without seeing me, they have also done this for other members of my family, this is from a triage of a minute over the phone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 16, 2019, 10:39:12 AM
Meanwhile back to United Ireland... 
Will you folks in the 6 be having a Census in 2021?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on August 16, 2019, 10:51:35 AM
Quote from: t_mac on August 16, 2019, 10:15:53 AM
In my surgery they have left a prescription at reception for antibiotics without seeing me, they have also done this for other members of my family, this is from a triage of a minute over the phone.
The nhs is a brilliant concept which is under serious pressure with an ageing population, relatively reducing resources , and unreasonable expectations/demands from the public
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on August 16, 2019, 10:54:32 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 16, 2019, 10:39:12 AM
Meanwhile back to United Ireland... 
Will you folks in the 6 be having a Census in 2021?

Yes, but expect some gurning about how certain questions are worded.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 16, 2019, 11:12:57 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 27, 2015, 06:50:27 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:07:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:02:01 PM
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 05:38:24 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.

And a lot of people still die from cancer, but progress will be made in both situations.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on August 16, 2019, 12:14:24 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 16, 2019, 11:12:57 AM
Quote from: michaelg link=topic=25844.msg1472844#msg1472844 date=b]1432749027[/b]]
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:07:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 06:02:01 PM
Quote from: dec on May 27, 2015, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2015, 05:38:24 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.

And a lot of people still die from cancer, but progress will be made in both situations.

4 Years later.

I think there's significant progress on both.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on August 16, 2019, 03:03:05 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 16, 2019, 10:15:53 AM
In my surgery they have left a prescription at reception for antibiotics without seeing me, they have also done this for other members of my family, this is from a triage of a minute over the phone.
Presumably not before ascertaining that you actually need them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: omaghjoe on August 16, 2019, 03:42:46 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 16, 2019, 09:22:54 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 15, 2019, 05:09:34 PM
The free at point of service is a rallying call for Corbyn. IT will run the NHS into the ground

One free appointment per year for checkup and a charge if you need additional. U13 and O60 obviously should be given more/completely free. Would be a good starting point

As for antibiotics dont get me started, if you take a sick wean to the doctor they'll tell you its a virus and then proceed to superscribe antibiotics!!! 7 years trainng for that... WTF
Bullshit and disingenuous, GP's train for 4 years after graduation and none of us would put up with the crap they have to go through to get there. I have never met a GP yet who would dish out unwarranted Ab's. There is a shortage of GP's for very obvious reasons.

You have a 5 year degree +2 years training to become a doctor that was the 7 I was talking about. Not sure what it is after that to become a GP.. presumably another 2?

Im sure you have never meet a GP who would admit to prescribing "unwarranted Abs" especially in their professional circles but i can guarantee you they are prescribed for viruses. Usually introduced with "well normally I don't like to prescribe antibiotics, but....." I am quite sure if they were pushed on it they would say have an answer like "The patient was showing signs of possible infection and required an immediate course of ABs....."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on August 18, 2019, 10:39:12 AM
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0816/1069255-new-settlement-on-the-island/

Quoting 2014 figures, the economists say the North contributed £1bn to UK Defence spending and £1bn towards the British national debt.

They add: "Furthermore, there will undoubtedly be some loss of public sector jobs in administering functions that would no longer exist in a post-unification scenario eg: HM Revenue and Customs which will reduce subvention costs further, although the net effect will be dependent on the success of former public sector workers finding re-employment."

There are also significant disparities in social welfare systems.


For example, an unemployed individual aged over 26 is entitled to a maximum of €193 per week in the Republic.

The equivalent payment in the North is £73.10 (€79.78).

Séamus McGuinness and Adele Bergin also found that incomes in the North were far behind wealthier regions in both Great Britain and Ireland.

That is partly explained by low productivity levels.

In an analysis of educational standards across the regions of Britain and Ireland in 2015, Northern Ireland had the highest population of share of individuals without qualifications and was the poorest performer in terms of graduates

Pension payments are also higher in the South.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on August 18, 2019, 10:42:13 AM
https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/OPEA173.pdf
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 02:07:00 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 16, 2019, 03:42:46 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 16, 2019, 09:22:54 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on August 15, 2019, 05:09:34 PM
The free at point of service is a rallying call for Corbyn. IT will run the NHS into the ground

One free appointment per year for checkup and a charge if you need additional. U13 and O60 obviously should be given more/completely free. Would be a good starting point

As for antibiotics dont get me started, if you take a sick wean to the doctor they'll tell you its a virus and then proceed to superscribe antibiotics!!! 7 years trainng for that... WTF
Bullshit and disingenuous, GP's train for 4 years after graduation and none of us would put up with the crap they have to go through to get there. I have never met a GP yet who would dish out unwarranted Ab's. There is a shortage of GP's for very obvious reasons.

You have a 5 year degree +2 years training to become a doctor that was the 7 I was talking about. Not sure what it is after that to become a GP.. presumably another 2?

Im sure you have never meet a GP who would admit to prescribing "unwarranted Abs" especially in their professional circles but i can guarantee you they are prescribed for viruses. Usually introduced with "well normally I don't like to prescribe antibiotics, but....." I am quite sure if they were pushed on it they would say have an answer like "The patient was showing signs of possible infection and required an immediate course of ABs....."

Having worked as a pharmacist in both the north and the south, the southern gps are mad for prescribing antibiotics, especially in odd or substandard doses that appear to be given just to get the patient out of their hair. Any weekends I work where I'm dealing with out of hours doctors, every single script that comes in is an antibiotic. Feels like when people are paying the 40-50 Euro to see the out of hours, the doctor feels obliged to give an antiobiotic instead of telling the patient to go home and rest.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Denn Forever on August 18, 2019, 03:28:11 PM
I wish it was 40-50 euro.  Here(Cavan) it is 90 euro for doctor on call.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 03:36:49 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on August 18, 2019, 03:28:11 PM
I wish it was 40-50 euro.  Here(Cavan) it is 90 euro for doctor on call.
That's mental. Had a woman telling me the doctor on  charged 50 if paying by card or 20 if paying cash. Cowboys
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 18, 2019, 04:07:44 PM
Quote from: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 03:36:49 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on August 18, 2019, 03:28:11 PM
I wish it was 40-50 euro.  Here(Cavan) it is 90 euro for doctor on call.
That's mental. Had a woman telling me the doctor on  charged 50 if paying by card or 20 if paying cash. Cowboys

A doctor on call is going to take as long getting there as actually seeing the patient. You wouldn't be seeing 3 or 4 in an hour.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 05:27:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 18, 2019, 04:07:44 PM
Quote from: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 03:36:49 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on August 18, 2019, 03:28:11 PM
I wish it was 40-50 euro.  Here(Cavan) it is 90 euro for doctor on call.
That's mental. Had a woman telling me the doctor on  charged 50 if paying by card or 20 if paying cash. Cowboys

A doctor on call is going to take as long getting there as actually seeing the patient. You wouldn't be seeing 3 or 4 in an hour.

I'm more getting to the point he's charging 20 cash which is obviously going into the back pocket
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 18, 2019, 05:48:29 PM
Quote from: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 05:27:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 18, 2019, 04:07:44 PM
Quote from: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 03:36:49 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on August 18, 2019, 03:28:11 PM
I wish it was 40-50 euro.  Here(Cavan) it is 90 euro for doctor on call.
That's mental. Had a woman telling me the doctor on  charged 50 if paying by card or 20 if paying cash. Cowboys

A doctor on call is going to take as long getting there as actually seeing the patient. You wouldn't be seeing 3 or 4 in an hour.

I'm more getting to the point he's charging 20 cash which is obviously going into the back pocket

A whole 20! Who wouldn't want to be a doctor.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 18, 2019, 06:40:29 PM
So a United Ireland is to be decided by anti biotics and prescriptions :o
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 06:45:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 18, 2019, 05:48:29 PM
Quote from: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 05:27:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 18, 2019, 04:07:44 PM
Quote from: markl121 on August 18, 2019, 03:36:49 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on August 18, 2019, 03:28:11 PM
I wish it was 40-50 euro.  Here(Cavan) it is 90 euro for doctor on call.
That's mental. Had a woman telling me the doctor on  charged 50 if paying by card or 20 if paying cash. Cowboys

A doctor on call is going to take as long getting there as actually seeing the patient. You wouldn't be seeing 3 or 4 in an hour.

I'm more getting to the point he's charging 20 cash which is obviously going into the back pocket

A whole 20! Who wouldn't want to be a doctor.

He's getting paid well by the Hse to provide the out of hours service also. The rest isn't documented. But sure tear you on
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: t_mac on August 19, 2019, 07:45:32 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 18, 2019, 06:40:29 PM
So a United Ireland is to be decided by anti biotics and prescriptions :o

Do you not think health care for all citizens is important.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: t_mac on August 19, 2019, 07:50:00 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on August 16, 2019, 03:03:05 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 16, 2019, 10:15:53 AM
In my surgery they have left a prescription at reception for antibiotics without seeing me, they have also done this for other members of my family, this is from a triage of a minute over the phone.
Presumably not before ascertaining that you actually need them.

With a minute phone call, some haven't been taken and the underlying issue has cleared. I presume they are just under so much pressure they try to clear backlogs
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on August 19, 2019, 08:30:37 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 18, 2019, 06:40:29 PM
So a United Ireland is to be decided by anti biotics and prescriptions :o

Similar issues swung the Scottish referendum a few years ago.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on August 19, 2019, 08:33:40 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 10, 2019, 08:46:40 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: dec on May 10, 2019, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 10, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
I know fine rightly a lot of them won't like it, and they're welcome to move to Britain if it is that unbearable.

Should that have been the attitude of Unionists towards nationalists?

"You're welcome to move down south if you find Northern Ireland so unbearable."

Well the thing is, many people from the north *did* move, many were forced to do so.  That was and still is the attitude among some of the more loyal citizens in NI today. Luckily, Unionists will never have to face what Irish nationalists endured back when they ran the show in the north. So if they don't like the democracy the option to flourish in post-brexit Britain is always there for them
I will agree that some were forced but a tiny fraction. The majority who left NI left for the same reason as they left RoI and the poorer regions of Europe

The rest of your "free to leave" rhetoric I will leave to those indulging in Orbanesque politics

Nationalist emigration was higher than Unionist for many years . This was by design.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on August 19, 2019, 01:22:43 PM
https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/OPEA173.pdf

"There is not an extensive literature on the performance of the NI economy, especially in the more recent period since the Good Friday Agreement; or how integrated the NI economy is with other GB regions or with the RoI economy. During the 1960s, the performance of the NI economy was relatively impressive with industrial production growing faster than the wider UK (Rowthorn, 1981). However, the 1970s saw a reversal of this trend, with the period being characterised by a rapid decline in the manufacturing base, very limited FDI and a rapid expansion in the services sector, predominately in the public sector (Rowthorn, 1981). In NI, employment in manufacturing and industrial production fell over the course of the 1970s, with the biggest losses in textiles, mechanical engineering and clothing and footwear (Rowthorn, 1981). This performance was much worse than the wider UK and contrasts with the experience of RoI where manufacturing and industrial employment expanded rapidly over the course of the decade (Rowthorn, 1981). Very few jobs were created by foreign multinationals investing in NI, which has largely been attributed to the Troubles (Bradley, 1996). Public sector employment expanded by 52% over the course of the 1970s, compared to just 22% in the UK as a whole, and while employment in police and prison services grew rapidly; there was also substantial increases in employment in health and education (Rowthorn, 1981). This reshaped the employment structure of the NI economy, so that by the early 1980s almost 40% of employment in NI was in the public sector (Teague, 2016). This expansion in public sector employment was facilitated by a large increase in the subvention to NI from the UK government, which helped in part to alleviate the impact of deindustrialisation; yet the underlying labour market prospects were poor (outside of the public sector) and the unemployment rate reached 20% in the early 1980s (Teague, 2016).
Michie and Sheehan (1998) investigated the extent to which the NI economy relates to that of GB and RoI by examining cointegration between the growth rates of NI, GB and RoI. Their findings lead the authors to conclude that the NI economy is in a 'somewhat anomalous' position as it was neither cointegrated with RoI nor with GB and also, at a regional level, not integrated with other parts in the UK. McGuinness and Sheehan (1998) examine the extent of regional convergence in the UK over the period 1970 to 1995. They show that despite growth in overall UK GDP per capita over the time period that that the ordering of regions' share of GDP per capita practically remained constant, with NI and Wales consistently having the lowest per capita income. Moreover, they find some limited evidence of regional convergence in the UK and little evidence that NI was closely integrated with GB regional economies.1 Finally, there has been limited analysis of the hoped for 'peace dividend' following the signing of the Belfast Agreement. Teague (2016) concludes that the broad economic structure of the NI economy remains very similar to that of twenty years ago and is still heavily dependent on UK subvention with the public sector remaining the driver of the local economy"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hereiam on August 19, 2019, 08:30:44 PM
Quote from: seafoid on August 19, 2019, 01:22:43 PM
https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/OPEA173.pdf

"There is not an extensive literature on the performance of the NI economy, especially in the more recent period since the Good Friday Agreement; or how integrated the NI economy is with other GB regions or with the RoI economy. During the 1960s, the performance of the NI economy was relatively impressive with industrial production growing faster than the wider UK (Rowthorn, 1981). However, the 1970s saw a reversal of this trend, with the period being characterised by a rapid decline in the manufacturing base, very limited FDI and a rapid expansion in the services sector, predominately in the public sector (Rowthorn, 1981). In NI, employment in manufacturing and industrial production fell over the course of the 1970s, with the biggest losses in textiles, mechanical engineering and clothing and footwear (Rowthorn, 1981). This performance was much worse than the wider UK and contrasts with the experience of RoI where manufacturing and industrial employment expanded rapidly over the course of the decade (Rowthorn, 1981). Very few jobs were created by foreign multinationals investing in NI, which has largely been attributed to the Troubles (Bradley, 1996). Public sector employment expanded by 52% over the course of the 1970s, compared to just 22% in the UK as a whole, and while employment in police and prison services grew rapidly; there was also substantial increases in employment in health and education (Rowthorn, 1981). This reshaped the employment structure of the NI economy, so that by the early 1980s almost 40% of employment in NI was in the public sector (Teague, 2016). This expansion in public sector employment was facilitated by a large increase in the subvention to NI from the UK government, which helped in part to alleviate the impact of deindustrialisation; yet the underlying labour market prospects were poor (outside of the public sector) and the unemployment rate reached 20% in the early 1980s (Teague, 2016).
Michie and Sheehan (1998) investigated the extent to which the NI economy relates to that of GB and RoI by examining cointegration between the growth rates of NI, GB and RoI. Their findings lead the authors to conclude that the NI economy is in a 'somewhat anomalous' position as it was neither cointegrated with RoI nor with GB and also, at a regional level, not integrated with other parts in the UK. McGuinness and Sheehan (1998) examine the extent of regional convergence in the UK over the period 1970 to 1995. They show that despite growth in overall UK GDP per capita over the time period that that the ordering of regions' share of GDP per capita practically remained constant, with NI and Wales consistently having the lowest per capita income. Moreover, they find some limited evidence of regional convergence in the UK and little evidence that NI was closely integrated with GB regional economies.1 Finally, there has been limited analysis of the hoped for 'peace dividend' following the signing of the Belfast Agreement. Teague (2016) concludes that the broad economic structure of the NI economy remains very similar to that of twenty years ago and is still heavily dependent on UK subvention with the public sector remaining the driver of the local economy"

That is not a healthy way to exist. People are deluded if they want this place to remain as it is, we need to get away from the shackles of Westminster
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ned on August 19, 2019, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 19, 2019, 08:30:37 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 18, 2019, 06:40:29 PM
So a United Ireland is to be decided by anti biotics and prescriptions :o

Similar issues swung the Scottish referendum a few years ago.

How?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on August 19, 2019, 10:55:59 PM
Quote from: ned on August 19, 2019, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 19, 2019, 08:30:37 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 18, 2019, 06:40:29 PM
So a United Ireland is to be decided by anti biotics and prescriptions :o

Similar issues swung the Scottish referendum a few years ago.

How?

Fears over pensions and such like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 19, 2019, 11:38:03 PM
Pensions were a red herring scare tactic to frighten the older voters.
Didn't pensioners in the 26 get paid after the Free State was set up?
And no doubt Czechs and Slovaks did after they went their separate ways.
Those Scots paid into the system for 40/50 years so their pensions would be sorted out in the Transitional arrangements.
I'm still wondering why prescribing anti biotics for viruses will derail a UI though :o
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on August 20, 2019, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 19, 2019, 11:38:03 PM
Pensions were a red herring scare tactic to frighten the older voters.
Didn't pensioners in the 26 get paid after the Free State was set up?
And no doubt Czechs and Slovaks did after they went their separate ways.
Those Scots paid into the system for 40/50 years so their pensions would be sorted out in the Transitional arrangements.
I'm still wondering why prescribing anti biotics for viruses will derail a UI though :o

Everyone in the BMW region and NI should read this document

https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/OPEA173.pdf

There is a very interesting chart in page 6

Munster and Leinster GDP per head is about twice that of NI and Border, Midlands,  West

Table 1: Per capita GDP in US dollars, constant 2010 prices, constant PPP 2000 2014

RoI: Southern & Eastern        42,979 55,991
UK: Northern Ireland             26,217 28,159
RoI: Border, Midlands West    25,931 27,369

The reason is the multinational export sector.

 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Chicago Hurling on August 20, 2019, 12:11:52 PM
Quote from: seafoid on August 20, 2019, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 19, 2019, 11:38:03 PM
Pensions were a red herring scare tactic to frighten the older voters.
Didn't pensioners in the 26 get paid after the Free State was set up?
And no doubt Czechs and Slovaks did after they went their separate ways.
Those Scots paid into the system for 40/50 years so their pensions would be sorted out in the Transitional arrangements.
I'm still wondering why prescribing anti biotics for viruses will derail a UI though :o

Everyone in the BMW region and NI should read this document

https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/OPEA173.pdf

There is a very interesting chart in page 6

Munster and Leinster GDP per head is about twice that of NI and Border, Midlands,  West

Table 1: Per capita GDP in US dollars, constant 2010 prices, constant PPP 2000 2014

RoI: Southern & Eastern        42,979 55,991
UK: Northern Ireland             26,217 28,159
RoI: Border, Midlands West    25,931 27,369

The reason is the multinational export sector.



Would that change if NI were to join the ROI? How many companies that are located in Cork or Galway might look to Belfast or Derry for a larger talent pool now that they can get the same tax concessions? It happens in other countries all the time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 13, 2020, 10:20:57 PM
From the leader in this week's Economist:

(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/200-width/print-covers/20200215_cna1280.jpg)

QuoteA united Ireland
Irish unification is becoming likelier
Time to start thinking about what it might mean

Leaders
Feb 13th 2020 edition

Feb 13th 2020
For most of the century since Ireland gained independence from Britain, control of the country has alternated between two parties. On February 8th that duopoly was smashed apart, when Sinn Fein got the largest share of first-preference votes in the republic's general election. The party, with links to the Irish Republican Army (ira), which bombed and shot its way through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, won with a left-wing platform that included promises to spend more on health and housing. Yet it did not hide its desire for something a lot more ambitious. "Our core political objective", its manifesto read, "is to achieve Irish Unity and the referendum on Unity which is the means to secure this."

Scottish independence has grabbed headlines since Brexit, but it is time to recognise the chances of a different secession from the United Kingdom. Sinn Fein's success at the election is just the latest reason to think that a united Ireland within a decade or so is a real—and growing—possibility.


That prospect means something far beyond the island of Ireland. The Irish diaspora includes more than 20m Americans. Parties to ethnic conflicts across the world have long found common cause with Northern Ireland's Roman Catholics, who contend that the separation from the south is an illegitimate vestige of 500 years of incompetent and often callous domination from London. Ireland, source of pubs, poets, playwrights and too many Eurovision songs for anyone's good, has soft power to rival a country many times its size.

Until today, however, unification has never been more than a Republican fantasy. Even as the ira waged a bloody campaign in the 20th century, the north's constitutional status was cemented by a solid Protestant majority and the financial and military backing of the British state. The Good Friday agreement of 1998 took the heat out of the struggle, bringing an end to the Troubles, which had claimed over 3,500 lives. Many Catholics were content to have representation in Northern Ireland's government thanks to that agreement, and to see their culture, flag and sports celebrated and subsidised. The Protestants have their terrorists, too, and a campaign for unification was thought to risk opening old wounds, with bloody consequences.

Brexit is one reason all this has changed. The north voted against, but the biggest unionist party and England voted for. Nationalists were not the only ones to be angered by the current home secretary, who suggested using the threat of food shortages to soften up the south in the negotiations, heedless of the famine in the 1840s when all of Ireland was under British rule. Brexit also creates an economic border in the Irish Sea, between Northern Ireland and Britain, even as it keeps a united Ireland for goods. Although services will become harder to trade with the south, trading goods will be easier than with Britain. In that the north's six counties are affected more by what happens in Dublin, the value of having a say in who governs there will grow.

The pressure for unification is about more than Brexit. Northern Ireland's census in 2021 is likely to confirm that Catholics outnumber Protestants for the first time. The republic has also become more welcoming. The influence of the Catholic church has faded dramatically and society has become more liberal. Over the past three decades restrictions on contraception have been lifted and gay marriage has been legalised. All this explains why support for unification in Northern Ireland appears to have risen in recent years. In some polls respondents show roughly equal support for it and the status quo.


That leads to the last reason for thinking that unification is more likely. Even though the Good Friday agreement reconciled some Catholics to remaining in the United Kingdom, it also set out how the north could peacefully rejoin the republic (see article). A British secretary of state who thinks it likely that a majority favours unification is bound to call a vote on the north's constitutional status. To change the republic's constitution, another referendum would be required in the south.

The eu has already said that Northern Ireland could rejoin the bloc under Ireland's membership after such a vote, meaning that for Northern Irish voters a referendum on Irish unity is also a second referendum on Brexit. Unlike an independent Scotland, which would have to go it alone (at least until the eu agreed to admit it), Northern Ireland would immediately rejoin a larger, richer club, from which it could win big subsidies—if not, perhaps, as big as the subsidy it gets from Westminster today.

There are obstacles and uncertainties. Sinn Fein's recent success may turn some in the north against unification. Brexit may turn out to have less effect than expected. A British secretary of state may use the wriggle room in the Good Friday agreement to hold off calling a referendum. Many British politicians worry that such a vote would be an administrative headache or, worse, provoke violence. So do their Irish counterparts (barring Sinn Fein), though they must always be seen to be fully behind unification.

Yet sooner than most people expect, the momentum for a united Ireland could come to seem unstoppable. If Scotland chooses independence, many in Northern Ireland would lose their ancestral connection to Britain. If the government in Westminster persistently refused to recognise that there was a majority in favour of unification in Northern Ireland, that could be just as destabilising as calling a referendum.


The green shoots of unification
The island of Ireland needs a plan. The priority should be to work out how to make unionists feel that they have a place in a new Ireland. Work is needed on the nuts and bolts of unification—including how to, and indeed whether to, merge two health systems (one of which is free), the armed forces and police services, and what to do about the north's devolved assembly. It helps that the republic has a fine record for the sort of citizen-led constitutional consultations that might help sort things out. Politicians from Britain and Ireland need to start talking, too. The price of ending violence two decades ago was for Northern Ireland, the republic and Britain to jointly set out a political route to a united Ireland. If the people of the north and the republic choose that path, the politicians must follow it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 13, 2020, 10:25:43 PM
From the briefing:


QuoteIs some revelation at hand?
Brexit and Sinn Fein's success boost talk of Irish unification
It would not be an easy process

(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20200215_FBD001_2.jpg)

Print edition | Briefing
Feb 13th 2020| BELFAST, DUBLIN, LONDON AND WASHINGTON, DC
Under the cavernous roof of the Royal Dublin Society's Simmonscourt Hall, Mary Lou McDonald, the president of Sinn Fein, is facing a gaggle of reporters. The atmosphere is electric; the day before, February 8th, Sinn Fein had won more first-choice votes in the general election than any of Ireland's other parties, which was a stunning upset. "We asked people to give us a chance, a chance to deliver the platform that we have set out," Ms McDonald says, "and that platform is about solving the housing crisis, it's about getting to grips with the crisis in our health services, it's about giving families and workers a break, giving them some breathing space."

The words could belong to any European politician whose insurgent party has broken up a staid political establishment. But Sinn Fein is also something more. All major political parties in the republic are, in principle, committed to seeing the six counties which remained in the United Kingdom in 1922 rejoin the 26 counties which gained their independence, and thus create a united Ireland. Sinn Fein, though, sees that cause as a real and pressing ambition. The party has international standing; as well as now being a force in the Irish Dail, it is the second-largest party in Northern Ireland. And it has a deeply troubling past. From the 1970s on, it was the political wing of the Irish Republican Army (ira), a paramilitary organisation which tried to push the British state out of Northern Ireland through terrorism.

Sinn Fein's new popularity does not have much to do with all that. Pundits attribute its success instead to its promise to spend more on public services and to the widespread desire to vote for a party beyond the centre/centre-right duopoly of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. The fact that, under Ms McDonald, Sinn Fein has lost a lot of the stigma produced by its terrorist association also helped. But if its newfound prominence does not derive from a fresh thirst for Irish unification, it is still one of three reasons why that prospect is starting to look like an unexpectedly big issue.

Of the other two reasons, the most obvious is another political upset: Brexit. In 2016 52% of the United Kingdom voted to leave the eu. But 56% of Northern Ireland voted to stay. Michael Collins, who was the Irish republic's ambassador to Germany at the time, remembers that "The first call I got at 7.30 [the morning after the Brexit vote] was from a member of the German Bundestag, saying 'Does this mean now that we have Irish Unity?'" Not in the short term. But the fact that unification would allow Northern Ireland to rejoin the eu is now a big part of the debate.

For the third reason, step away from the hurly-burly of electoral politics to take in the deep tides of demography. When the six counties of Northern Ireland opted out of independence in 1922, they thought they were ensuring that a part of the island would always remain under Protestant control; Protestants outnumbered Roman Catholics there by two to one.

(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20200215_FBC344_1.png)

That edge has been dulled. Analysis by The Economist of the censuses of 2001 and 2011, along with results of Britain's quarterly labour-force survey, strongly suggests that Catholics are now the single biggest confessional grouping in Northern Ireland (see chart). Gerry Adams, who was president of Sinn Fein from 1983 to 2018, and who is widely believed also to have been a senior figure in the ira—a charge he completely rejects—once quipped that though "outbreeding unionists may be an enjoyable pastime...it hardly amounts to a political strategy." Yet it has still brought about a change. If the 2021 census bears this out, the finding will add to the fears of unionists.

The unionists, who have dominated Northern Ireland since partition, are for the most part Protestants whose identities are bound up with Britishness—whether through support for the British government itself, British traditions or the idea that the royal family is the ultimate defender of their faith. Even before Sinn Fein's success in the south, Peter Robinson, the former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, the biggest party in Northern Ireland, was warning his fellow unionists to prepare for a referendum.

Study reading-books and history
The possibility of such a referendum is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement (also known as the Belfast agreement). Reached in 1998, this deal marked the end of the decades of violence which grew out of civil-rights protests against the province's unionist-dominated parliament in the 1960s and the backlash against them. In 1972 that parliament was dissolved and the province, garrisoned with British soldiers, ruled directly from London. Over 3,500 people died during these "Troubles", a majority of them civilians, a tenth of them British soldiers; some 2,000 were killed by the ira and other republican paramilitaries, half that number by paramilitaries on the unionist side.

The Good Friday agreement created a new devolved government in the north in which power would be shared between the two communities. It recognised that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and that the republic of Ireland had an interest in its people, who would have the right to be recognised as Irish, British or both. It also provided a political path to a united Ireland, should the people north and south of the border both want it. But none of those involved thought that path would be walked down any time soon.

The decades since have been mostly peaceful, and the north has become a much more "normal" place. But although its workplaces are increasingly mixed and its police force reformed, in their schools and their houses the communities remain separated. Because it is hard to close religious establishments to make way for integrated ones, over 90% of the population is still segregated at school (though not at university). The threat of violence has left public housing mostly segregated. Six-metre "peace walls" mark places where troublemakers from one community might mount incursions against the other. Remnants of the old paramilitary organisations persist; they are mostly concerned with drug crime and extortion, but they still sometimes engage in political violence.

The route to unification that the agreement sets out is fairly simple. "If at any time it appears likely" to the British secretary of state for Northern Ireland that a majority would back reunification, Britain must call a referendum and honour its result. "Appears likely", though, does give the minister room for manoeuvre. The Constitution Unit at University College London says he should take into account a number of factors. A consistent majority for unification in opinion polls would certainly be one, as might a Catholic majority, or a nationalist majority in Northern Irish elections. None of these has as yet been seen. But opinion polls have been showing increasing support for unification since the Brexit vote, and some now have it neck and neck with the status quo; Catholics may already be a plurality; and although unionists got more votes than nationalists at the British general election last December, the nationalists won more seats.

Since February 8th, Ms McDonald has warned that Britain, and "London in particular", need to get ready for unification, because "constitutional change is coming." If Sinn Fein is to enter into a coalition, or provide any support to a governing party, its price is likely to include the beginning of preparations for a referendum. Aengus Ó Snodaigh, a Sinn Fein parliamentarian, says the as-yet-undefined Irish government would have to bring people together from across the island "to sit down and figure out what type of society we want."

If the north were to vote for unification, the south's constitution would have to be changed, which would require its people, too, to have a vote. In "A Treatise on Northern Ireland", Brendan O'Leary, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that the "rational order" would be for such a vote to take place after some time spent negotiating the form of unification.

That is, at the moment, an open issue, and one which would not just be up to Ireland. Richard Humphreys, an Irish high-court judge, points out that, even after unification, the Good Friday agreement would still give Britain a role as a guarantor of citizenship, and its devolved institutions would be expected to function in Ireland as they do now in the United Kingdom. In the longer term, Mr O'Leary outlines three plausible outcomes to a unification process: a unitary state run from Dublin; a devolved government in the north not unlike today's; or a confederation of two states. Each would raise different questions about the workings of the new state, including the courts, the army and public services.

Constitutional implications aside, issues of identity and economics are likely to drive any initial decision. Both are being changed by Brexit. Take identity first. The Good Friday compromise rested, to some extent, on the idea that all British Islanders were European. As John Hewitt, a Northern Irish poet, put it in 1974:

I'm an Ulsterman, of planter stock. I was born in the island of Ireland, so secondarily I'm an Irishman. I was born in the British archipelago, and English is my native tongue, so I'm British. The British archipelago consists of offshore islands to the continent of Europe, so I'm European.

Quite a few Northern Irish people, of all confessions and none, feel that Brexit has stripped them of their European identity. There are a lot of people who are not against the idea of a united Ireland but have long wondered whether it is worth the trouble. Now that unification would bring a return to the eu—the European Council has confirmed that the "entire territory" of a united Ireland would be part of the union—they may be swayed in that direction.

Many in the north also realise that life in a united Ireland would feel a lot less alien to them today than it would have in the republic's clerically policed past. A country where, 30 years ago, contraceptives were tightly controlled, abortion banned and gay rights unheard of, now boasts, in the person of Leo Varadkar, still taoiseach (prime minister) at the time The Economist went to press, a national leader who is both gay and of mixed race. A woman who wants an abortion in Dublin is better placed than her sister in Belfast, where unionists have opposed liberalising abortion law. Gay marriage is legal in Northern Ireland only because Westminster mandated it over unionist objections.

All this said, identity is about little things as well as big ones, and there would be an almost limitless number of them to fiddle with and take umbrage over. "When I opened my curtains in the morning [after Northern Ireland rejoined the republic], is the postbox still red or is it green?" asks Mike Nesbitt, a former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party (uup). Mark Daly, a senator for Fianna Fail, argues that there need to be agreements made in advance to prevent nationalists from rubbing their victory in unionists' faces. What would stop nationalists naming Belfast's main airport after Mr Adams, for example? Other questions abound. Would there be a new flag? A new national anthem? Would the state commemorate British soldiers from the north who died in the Troubles? The national conversations Mr Ó Snodaigh envisages would have issues galore to chew on.

Then there is the economy. It has long been a reason for persuadable voters in the north to stick with the status quo, and for Irish politicians supportive of unification in principle not to strive for it in practice. As Mr Collins's early-morning caller knew, the last reunification of a partitioned country was remarkably expensive. In the 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, some €2trn ($2.2trn) was spent rebuilding the economy of the east.

Northern Ireland, though poorer than the south, is nothing like as badly off as East Germany was compared with the west. In 1989 West Germany boasted four times the east's gdp per person. But it also had four times its population, whereas the republic of Ireland is less than three times larger than the north (see table). And the north's economy is in a long-standing mess, scarred by the Troubles and "left behind" by deindustrialisation. Harland and Wolff, which laid the keel of Titanic in 1909, went into administration last August; its two gigantic cranes, Samson and Goliath, tower over the Belfast skyline as silent monuments to decline. Official data suggest that the public sector in Northern Ireland accounts for well over 50% of local gdp and that it raises enough tax to pay for only two-thirds of its spending. The British government makes up the difference.

(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/20200215_FBC346.png)

Nationalist economists claim that Northern Ireland's fiscal deficit is artificially inflated by statistical trickery. They say, for instance, that if the region broke free from Britain it would not have to repay the portion of Britain's public debt built into those figures. There is precedent here. In the 1920s Ireland's republican leaders negotiated down the British government's initial demand that their new nation take on a pro rata share of public-debt and pension liabilities. On the other hand, during the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 the British government insisted that a newly independent Scotland would have to assume responsibility for its share of British public debt.

Covering Northern Ireland's fiscal deficit would be a tall order for the republic. It would have some help. In a recent interview Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump's chief of staff, told The Economist that "we expect that both philanthropists and the private sector in America would stand ready to help Northern Ireland in the event of reunification." The eu would obviously play a role. But providing just half of the north's current subsidy would cost the republic some 3% of its national income.

(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20200215_FBD002_2.jpg)

This strongly suggests that in a newly united Ireland the north would face spending cuts—as might the south. That is grist to the mill of unionists who argue against unification on the basis of poor public services (the issue which, ironically, just boosted Sinn Fein's vote). "You're given Scandinavian rates of taxation with southern European standards of health care and services," says Steve Aiken, the leader of the uup. "I just don't know why people in the Irish republic put up with it." The National Health Service performs worse in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. But it is free at the point of need. Many northern nationalists, never mind unionists, shudder at the thought of the south's insurance-based model.

Brexit further complicates the economics of Irish reunification. To some, it is another argument for remaining part of Britain. Northern Irish businesses sell twice as much to the mainland as to the republic. But for others, Brexit makes it essential to leave Britain. An official analysis of the effects of a free-trade agreement between Britain and the eu sees it lowering Northern Ireland's national income by 8% over the long run, compared with just 5% for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Scots Wha Hae
On top of this, the possibility of a further political upset looms. Brexit did not just take the people of Northern Ireland out of the eu against their will; it did the same for the people of Scotland, 62% of whom had voted to stay in. The Scottish National Party, which currently forms a minority government in Edinburgh, sees being taken out of the eu against its will as grounds for Scotland to have a second vote on independence. It has no mechanism for forcing the Westminster government to go along with this, but that does not mean it will not happen. And this time the nationalists might win.

Given the strength of the ties between Northern Ireland's Protestants and Scotland, such a vote would be a heavy blow to unionists. "A lot of people here would feel they had lost the mothership," says James Wilson, an Ulsterman and former British soldier. A United Kingdom consisting just of England, Northern Ireland and Wales would look fundamentally incoherent—not a fatal flaw in a state, but a serious one.

For the time being, only Sinn Fein is arguing for a unification process to start soon. The more common nationalist position still cleaves to the spirit of St Augustine: "Lord, give me a border poll—but not yet." Claire Hanna, an mp for the Social and Democratic Labour Party, the north's other nationalist party, says that although a united Ireland is now on her agenda in a way it was not before Brexit, reconciliation (see article), the economy and public services remain her priorities.

One observer in Dublin holds unification to be "like the pursuit of happiness—it can't be pursued directly, it can only ensue from a position of harmony and peace." It is a nice, if somewhat quietist, sentiment. But it is one that just a couple more political surprises could put to severe test.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on February 17, 2020, 11:40:21 PM
That's a pretty big deficit for the Shinners to overturn in the next 10 years!!!

https://amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/less-than-third-want-a-united-ireland-reveals-study-of-voters-38966196.html?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 17, 2020, 11:51:32 PM
When do the demographics kick in?
8% of Shinners and 19% Stoops want to stay in the (Dis)UK!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on February 18, 2020, 12:05:01 AM
Taken from a sample of 2000 people. FFS lads.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on February 18, 2020, 12:05:23 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 17, 2020, 11:51:32 PM
When do the demographics kick in?
8% of Shinners and 19% Stoops want to stay in the (Dis)UK!!

It's nowhere near as simple as demographics. Just because you were raised Catholic doesn't mean you want a United Ireland.

The case needs to be made that you'll be at least as well off if not better in a United Ireland otherwise why mess with the status quo? There hasn't been armed struggle for 25 years so there's a generation who don't understand it and haven't been discriminated against in the same way the older Catholic generation were.

They want to know what's in it for themselves ... Sinn Fein indeed!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on February 18, 2020, 12:12:42 AM
Quote from: GJL on February 18, 2020, 12:05:01 AM
Taken from a sample of 2000 people. FFS lads.

What size of sample do you think is used in an opinion poll??

The North is small that's a fairly large sample compared to data compiled by Yougov for a general election which would take 1500-2000 of a sample to model the whole of the UK!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mikhail Prokhorov on February 18, 2020, 02:00:51 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 18, 2020, 12:05:23 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 17, 2020, 11:51:32 PM
When do the demographics kick in?
8% of Shinners and 19% Stoops want to stay in the (Dis)UK!!

It's nowhere near as simple as demographics. Just because you were raised Catholic doesn't mean you want a United Ireland.

The case needs to be made that you'll be at least as well off if not better in a United Ireland otherwise why mess with the status quo? There hasn't been armed struggle for 25 years so there's a generation who don't understand it and haven't been discriminated against in the same way the older Catholic generation were.

They want to know what's in it for themselves ... Sinn Fein indeed!

can we not all not do with less in the short term ::)  the future is what matters

the economic argument is peddled by those who want the status quo to continue and fear real change
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: NetNitrate on February 18, 2020, 03:18:36 AM
The paradox of a United Ireland is the majority in the North will only vote to join a thriving state but for  Sinn Fein to gain power in the South they have to constantly trump what a piece of shit the Free State is. It's not - it's far superior to the North, far superior to the Uk, and a shame it's constantly put down.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 04:35:11 AM
Quote from: GJL on February 18, 2020, 12:05:01 AM
Taken from a sample of 2000 people. FFS lads.

So? 1000 would be a decent size for a poll. A poll is not a census, it's a sample. That's what polling is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on February 18, 2020, 09:04:44 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 04:35:11 AM
Quote from: GJL on February 18, 2020, 12:05:01 AM
Taken from a sample of 2000 people. FFS lads.

So? 1000 would be a decent size for a poll. A poll is not a census, it's a sample. That's what polling is.

Indeed. And we have seen in the UK the value of polls and how accurate they can be. A waste of time when dealing with such small numbers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on February 18, 2020, 09:25:30 AM
The sample size isnt the problem its the fact that the people are interviewed.!!!!. I dont know any election in the world were its not an anonymous poll so this one is highly flawed and historically similar polls have given similarly low results for unity
Lord ashcroft and lucid talk are anonymous and have irish unity in the lead
Lucid talk isnt without its flaws as it seemed to be swamped by Alliance members in the run up to the last election resulting in some ridiculous projections for them but they still did exceptionally well on election day.
The middle ground ie Alliance and Green figures seem exceptionally low for unity considering other polling had them way ahead for unity post brexit!!!
All in all I wouldnt pay too much attention to it. Just laugh at the bel tel and its usual idiots like Ellis O hanlon using it for her own means and just ignoring any other recent polling. Expect Ruth Dudley to have something to say as well. The bel tel  really is a rag
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on February 18, 2020, 09:27:53 AM
Ps not too sure how 'neutral' jon tonge is on the subject.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on February 18, 2020, 10:33:22 AM
the vote for a united Ireland is all about educating the undecided.
in advance of any vote there has to be a concerted plan to show the benefits of unity
Northern Ireland is a basket case of an economy totally reliant upon the subsidy of uk Parliament.
to persuade the unionists with a small u and the middle ground a pr campaign has to be set  in train highlighting the fact that ireland is  a progressive EU nation with a higher standard of gdp per capita.
to rush blindly into a poll is effectively what the unionists want because they know unlike with Scotland , the uk parliament wont be so partisan.
its a five/ten year plan which has to be rolled out on sound economic facts not on nationalist jingoism.
then we will see where we are with unity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 18, 2020, 10:37:38 AM
Quote from: naka on February 18, 2020, 10:33:22 AM
a pr campaign has to be set  in train highlighting the fact that ireland is a progressive EU nation

Except it's not. We're a tiny dysfunctional country that suffers recessions or depressions every 15 years or so, tided over in between by the multinationals...

Quote from: naka on February 18, 2020, 10:33:22 AM
...with a higher standard of gdp per capita.

as evidenced by the fact our GDP doesn't even measure our national income. "Leprechaun economics"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 01:16:43 PM
GDP is not a proper measure, but the number at work in 26 counties increased by over 3% last year and that is a real measure.

As for the poll, a person can reasonably be a nationalist while not voting for an immediate united Ireland because the groundwork has not been done. Being a nationalist means that you expect the work to be done. SF have not even been able to produce a credible financial model for the 26 counties in their manifesto, never mind a UI. Their money tree economics is a serious obstacle to Irish unity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tbrick18 on February 18, 2020, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 01:16:43 PM
GDP is not a proper measure, but the number at work in 26 counties increased by over 3% last year and that is a real measure.

As for the poll, a person can reasonably be a nationalist while not voting for an immediate united Ireland because the groundwork has not been done. Being a nationalist means that you expect the work to be done. SF have not even been able to produce a credible financial model for the 26 counties in their manifesto, never mind a UI. Their money tree economics is a serious obstacle to Irish unity.

Have SF discussed finance with regards to a UI?
I saw an interview with Mary-Lou and she seemed to be saying that preparations and discussions were needed so that the picture of what a UI could look like can be created. Is this not laying the groundwork?
Personally, I think we need to see what Brexit is going to bring to NI. If it turns out to be as bad as many predict, I could see many small "u" unionists voting for a UI to get back into Europe providing their British identity is retained. Likewise, for many Nationalists who might not vote for it now, I think a painful Brexit for us would swing that vote.
There is a sizeable proportion of the electorate here who would vote in economic terms and not on political terms with respect to a border poll.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 18, 2020, 01:40:40 PM
A politician making promises in a TV interview is not laying the groundwork for anything.

If Brexit is painful for the north, it will be equally so for the republic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: naka on February 18, 2020, 03:26:09 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 10:37:38 AM
Quote from: naka on February 18, 2020, 10:33:22 AM
a pr campaign has to be set  in train highlighting the fact that ireland is a progressive EU nation

Except it's not. We're a tiny dysfunctional country that suffers recessions or depressions every 15 years or so, tided over in between by the multinationals...

Quote from: naka on February 18, 2020, 10:33:22 AM
...with a higher standard of gdp per capita.
ireland might in your words be a tiny dysfunctional country but jeez compared  to the North it is an economic utopia

as i said this is a 5/10 year plan

as evidenced by the fact our GDP doesn't even measure our national income. "Leprechaun economics"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 18, 2020, 03:48:35 PM
When are them Nordies going to get off their lazy arses and start to earn a collective living for themselves?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:34:26 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 18, 2020, 09:04:44 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 04:35:11 AM
Quote from: GJL on February 18, 2020, 12:05:01 AM
Taken from a sample of 2000 people. FFS lads.

So? 1000 would be a decent size for a poll. A poll is not a census, it's a sample. That's what polling is.

Indeed. And we have seen in the UK the value of polls and how accurate they can be. A waste of time when dealing with such small numbers.

If you're referring to the recent UK general election, the outcome was entirely consistent with the polls. I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.

First I've heard of it. Where did you hear this?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.

First I've heard of it. Where did you hear this?

Very funny.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 18, 2020, 03:48:35 PM
When are them Nordies going to get off their lazy arses and start to earn a collective living for themselves?

Little problem with that. SF have adopted a "let's screw as much money out of the Brits as we can" policy. The DUP have adopted pretty much the same policy.

If anyone is making concrete proposals to make the north more competitive and less dependent on processing public sector paperwork, they're having a hard time making their voices heard.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on February 18, 2020, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 01:16:43 PM
GDP is not a proper measure, but the number at work in 26 counties increased by over 3% last year and that is a real measure.

As for the poll, a person can reasonably be a nationalist while not voting for an immediate united Ireland because the groundwork has not been done. Being a nationalist means that you expect the work to be done. SF have not even been able to produce a credible financial model for the 26 counties in their manifesto, never mind a UI. Their money tree economics is a serious obstacle to Irish unity.

Have SF discussed finance with regards to a UI?
I saw an interview with Mary-Lou and she seemed to be saying that preparations and discussions were needed so that the picture of what a UI could look like can be created. Is this not laying the groundwork?

Hard graft is needed with actual detail, these discussions are vapourware.

QuotePersonally, I think we need to see what Brexit is going to bring to NI. If it turns out to be as bad as many predict, I could see many small "u" unionists voting for a UI to get back into Europe providing their British identity is retained. Likewise, for many Nationalists who might not vote for it now, I think a painful Brexit for us would swing that vote.
There is a sizeable proportion of the electorate here who would vote in economic terms and not on political terms with respect to a border poll.

Brexit may well have a material effect, polls have shown a large swing in NI based on the type of Brexit.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:45:40 PM
Little problem with that. SF have adopted a "let's screw as much money out of the Brits as we can" policy. The DUP have adopted pretty much the same policy.

Exactly. But "let's screw as much money out of the Brits as we can" increases the NI deficit and makes any talk of a UI unrealistic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.

First I've heard of it. Where did you hear this?

Very funny.

GDP growth has been positive since 2013. What numbers are you looking at?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.

First I've heard of it. Where did you hear this?

Very funny.

GDP growth has been positive since 2013. What numbers are you looking at?

Even funnier.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on February 18, 2020, 05:54:31 PM
Those Lucid and Lord Ashcroft polls were showing a small minority for Unity when British gov was in disarray over Brexit, and Irish gov were schooling them with backing of EU. Now things have settled in UK with Boris securing a comfortable majority, while the Irish political scene is now very fragmented, which doesn't look like changing anytime soon. It would be best to see an updated Lucid or LA poll, as this one still seems off.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.

First I've heard of it. Where did you hear this?

Very funny.

GDP growth has been positive since 2013. What numbers are you looking at?

Even funnier.

Leaving aside GDP, employment and unemployment stats show that things have been good of late as do earnings stats

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzw-_JIWoAA3tSu?format=png&name=small)

(https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/er/earningsandlabourcostsquarterly/q32019/ELCQ2019Q3FIG1.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GJL on February 18, 2020, 06:34:19 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:34:26 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 18, 2020, 09:04:44 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 04:35:11 AM
Quote from: GJL on February 18, 2020, 12:05:01 AM
Taken from a sample of 2000 people. FFS lads.

So? 1000 would be a decent size for a poll. A poll is not a census, it's a sample. That's what polling is.

Indeed. And we have seen in the UK the value of polls and how accurate they can be. A waste of time when dealing with such small numbers.

If you're referring to the recent UK general election, the outcome was entirely consistent with the polls. I'm not sure where you're coming from.

I wasn't. I was referring to the previous general election and also the Brexit vote where polls in both proved to be a waste of time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 18, 2020, 06:36:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
Leaving aside GDP, employment and unemployment stats show that things have been good of late as do earnings stats

In relative terms, yes. And I should of course have said "much of the past 12" rather than "most of the last 10".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 06:39:32 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.

First I've heard of it. Where did you hear this?

Very funny.

GDP growth has been positive since 2013. What numbers are you looking at?

Even funnier.

You don't have any numbers, do you?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 18, 2020, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 06:39:32 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.

First I've heard of it. Where did you hear this?

Very funny.

GDP growth has been positive since 2013. What numbers are you looking at?

Even funnier.

You don't have any numbers, do you?

No but you told me a while back that you'd ignore me. What goes around etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 07:09:14 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 06:53:47 PM
No but you told me a while back that you'd ignore me. What goes around etc.
Did I? Shoot! I must have forgotten to add you to my ignore list. I'll leave you on probation for a while, how does that sound?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 18, 2020, 07:23:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 07:09:14 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 06:53:47 PM
No but you told me a while back that you'd ignore me. What goes around etc.
Did I? Shoot! I must have forgotten to add you to my ignore list. I'll leave you on probation for a while, how does that sound?

No. Stick to your word.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on February 18, 2020, 07:49:13 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: five points on February 18, 2020, 03:40:07 PM
We in the south have spent most of the last 10 years in recession. It's only a matter of time before that returns, and our tax receipts are in addition heavily dependent on a handful of multinationals, who could move on at any time. On top of that our debt is off the scale both in real terms and as a % of GNI.  We are in no shape to finance a unification project. Forget about a 5/10 year plan, we'd be doing well to finance it over 50 years.

First I've heard of it. Where did you hear this?

Very funny.

GDP growth has been positive since 2013. What numbers are you looking at?

Even funnier.

Leaving aside GDP, employment and unemployment stats show that things have been good of late as do earnings stats

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzw-_JIWoAA3tSu?format=png&name=small)

(https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/er/earningsandlabourcostsquarterly/q32019/ELCQ2019Q3FIG1.png)
Those CSO average earning stats tell us nothing about whether things are good or not for the 400,000 earning < Eur10k p/a   or the 400,000 earning between eur10k-20k p/a

Question: What age are you?
Answer: the average age in my town is 35.     
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 09:35:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 18, 2020, 07:49:13 PM
Those CSO average earning stats tell us nothing about whether things are good or not for the 400,000 earning < Eur10k p/a   or the 400,000 earning between eur10k-20k p/a

Question: What age are you?
Answer: the average age in my town is 35.   

The discussion was about whether there was a recession. The earnings data shows that people generally are doing OK which says nothing about particular individuals, nor did I claim that it did.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 09:47:26 PM
Indeed. I think some people need to look up the definition of recession.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 18, 2020, 09:54:19 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 09:47:26 PM
Indeed. I think some people need to look up the definition of recession.

Perhaps they think it means going bald.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 19, 2020, 08:11:14 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2020, 09:47:26 PM
Indeed. I think some people need to look up the definition of recession.

The definition tends to vary depending on whether you're an economics professor or corporate analyst or you're just an ordinary person trying to make ends meet with an uncertain work outlook, a heavy mortgage, ballooning taxes and living costs, and a family to feed and educate. By the latter standard, Ireland has had a rough time of it over the last decade. Last week's election result demonstrates that in spades.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 19, 2020, 10:11:23 AM
"Ballooning taxes"....
A neo liberal.
Neo liberalism caused the crash in 2008.
Was there any crash in Scandinavia or Denmark?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 19, 2020, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 19, 2020, 10:11:23 AM
"Ballooning taxes"....
A neo liberal.
Neo liberalism caused the crash in 2008.
Was there any crash in Scandinavia or Denmark?

Name calling and whataboutery.

Look hard enough and you'll find that the USC in particular is robbing people blind and there are all sorts of crises going on for families eg in putting kids through college and the recourse to dodgy PCP finance whenever a new car is needed. Essentially the few bob that parents used save for these and other eventualities is being hoovered up by the government. Where it will all end, I don't know but there might not be a happy ending.

If that's neo liberal, I'm happy to wear the badge.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 19, 2020, 10:28:57 AM
As for Denmark, this is on my twitter right now.

https://twitter.com/Murphdog11/status/1230069494736990209?s=20

Noel Lacey
@Murphdog11
·
28m
Replying to
@paddycosgrave
I call BS, lived in Denmark and didn't pay as much tax there as I do here. I had more disposable income in DK at end of month, and I'm being paid more here! On top of that my taxes paid for healthcare, childcare & decent public services .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on February 19, 2020, 11:07:51 AM
Quote from: five points on February 19, 2020, 10:28:57 AM
As for Denmark, this is on my twitter right now.

https://twitter.com/Murphdog11/status/1230069494736990209?s=20

Noel Lacey
@Murphdog11
·
28m
Replying to
@paddycosgrave
I call BS, lived in Denmark and didn't pay as much tax there as I do here. I had more disposable income in DK at end of month, and I'm being paid more here! On top of that my taxes paid for healthcare, childcare & decent public services .

Paddy Cosgrave is definitely a prat.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 19, 2020, 12:00:28 PM
Someone on €40k pays around  €1,100 USC.
Around €1900 PRSI
Around €5,500 PAYE.

Of course if we abolished the public health system, public education and social welfare  we could reduce those taxes and go back to the neo liberal paradise of the 1840s.
Must look up the history if those glorious days.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 19, 2020, 12:07:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 19, 2020, 12:00:28 PM
Someone on €40k pays around  €1,100 USC.
Around €1900 PRSI
Around €5,500 PAYE.

Of course if we abolished the public health system, public education and social welfare  we could reduce those taxes and go back to the neo liberal paradise of the 1840s.
Must look up the history if those glorious days.

Nobody would mind USC if they cut PAYE to compensate for it. But they didn't. And for many it's the straw that has broken the camel's back.  Referencing the 1840s in this context is staggering.

Anyway we've gone off-topic. Let's see how appealing the USC will be to our friends in the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on February 19, 2020, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: five points on February 19, 2020, 12:07:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 19, 2020, 12:00:28 PM
Someone on €40k pays around  €1,100 USC.
Around €1900 PRSI
Around €5,500 PAYE.

Of course if we abolished the public health system, public education and social welfare  we could reduce those taxes and go back to the neo liberal paradise of the 1840s.
Must look up the history if those glorious days.

Nobody would mind USC if they cut PAYE to compensate for it. But they didn't. And for many it's the straw that has broken the camel's back.  Referencing the 1840s in this context is staggering.

Anyway we've gone off-topic. Let's see how appealing the USC will be to our friends in the north.

I'm happy to pay a lot more tax in UI as a business owner and employer.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 19, 2020, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 19, 2020, 12:17:57 PM
I'm happy to pay a lot more tax in UI as a business owner and employer.

I used to think that way too. But USC ain't that much fun eg when we've a health insurance renewal bill to pay.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 19, 2020, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: five points on February 19, 2020, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 19, 2020, 12:17:57 PM
I'm happy to pay a lot more tax in UI as a business owner and employer.

I used to think that way too. But USC ain't that much fun eg when we've a health insurance renewal bill to pay.
And dont forget the "draconian " LPT of € 90 a year.
That will be the straw that stops a UI🙄😳.

If only I could move to England and pay Council tax of £1500 to £2000 per annum and £300 or more for water.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on February 19, 2020, 12:44:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 19, 2020, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: five points on February 19, 2020, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 19, 2020, 12:17:57 PM
I'm happy to pay a lot more tax in UI as a business owner and employer.

I used to think that way too. But USC ain't that much fun eg when we've a health insurance renewal bill to pay.
And dont forget the "draconian " LPT of € 90 a year.
That will be the straw that stops a UI🙄😳.

If only I could move to England and pay Council tax of £1500 to £2000 per annum and £300 or more for water.

LPT is a nothingburger for almost everyone. A lot of us are paying at least the equivalent of £300 for water though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tbrick18 on February 21, 2020, 09:44:18 AM
I'm seriously confused about the discussion on this thread  :o
There's seems to be a lot of anti SF rhetoric from posters north and south.
There seems to be an attempt by some posters in the south to put posters in the north off a UI due to the taxes.
There seems to be some posters from the north who are anti UI.

I'm not a massive SF supporter, but I do believe that formal discussion about a UI needs to begin before any UI poll so that people know what they would be voting for (unlike Brexit). Mary-Lou has said that she wants to start this and to me that is a sensible approach rather than just dragging everyone along with whatever their view of a UI is.

It feels like there are a lot of people who don't even want this discussion, but I'm not sure if that's because they genuinely don't want it or if it's because SF are the people calling for it.

Personally, I think all of these opinions need to be considered and should feed into a process of what a UI would look like.
Taxes, health care, governance...all that day to day mechanics of running a country and how both North and South would be affected financially.
There's seems to be an assumption that in a UI world, the Dublin government will set all the rules and that NI will fall in behind the taxation, health etc currently in place in ROI.
I'd guess things wouldn't be as simple as that. I could see a scenario where NI still exists in it's own right. In fact, it could be very similar to the situation today with Westminster being replaced by the Irish government with certain powers still being devolved to the NI Assembly. If you consider that that the Unionist population of NI would have to be catered for, I don't think this is beyond the realms of possibility as that type of government may make them more comfortable with the UI scenario.

All just thoughts and not intended to take away from anyone else's opinion.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 21, 2020, 11:22:00 AM
The GFA says the dual Nationality thing will continue in the North in the event of a change of status.
That will require a continued different status for the 6 Cos.
As I said many times here over the years the new All Ireland State will likely be a Confederation of two semi autonomous/home rule areas of the present 6 and 26 Co areas .
A slimmed down Dáil and Stormont would run a lot of things in their areas while the "Confederation " would run major items.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 21, 2020, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on February 21, 2020, 09:44:18 AM
I'm seriously confused about the discussion on this thread  :o
There's seems to be a lot of anti SF rhetoric from posters north and south.

Because SF carry on, both the coat trailing and the fantasy economics,  is an important obstacle to a united Ireland, nationalists obviously resent this.



QuoteThere's seems to be an assumption that in a UI world, the Dublin government will set all the rules and that NI will fall in behind the taxation, health etc currently in place in ROI.
I'd guess things wouldn't be as simple as that. I could see a scenario where NI still exists in it's own right. In fact, it could be very similar to the situation today with Westminster being replaced by the Irish government with certain powers still being devolved to the NI Assembly. If you consider that that the Unionist population of NI would have to be catered for, I don't think this is beyond the realms of possibility as that type of government may make them more comfortable with the UI scenario.

All just thoughts and not intended to take away from anyone else's opinion.

What is the point in continuing partition in a united Ireland? Why should Donegal be separated from Derry? Why should people in Belcoo and Blacklion go to different hospitals, schools etc?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tbrick18 on February 21, 2020, 02:40:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2020, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on February 21, 2020, 09:44:18 AM
I'm seriously confused about the discussion on this thread  :o
There's seems to be a lot of anti SF rhetoric from posters north and south.

Because SF carry on, both the coat trailing and the fantasy economics,  is an important obstacle to a united Ireland, nationalists obviously resent this.

Examples? I'd consider myself a nationalist but I don't resent something I haven't seen an example of..


QuoteThere's seems to be an assumption that in a UI world, the Dublin government will set all the rules and that NI will fall in behind the taxation, health etc currently in place in ROI.
I'd guess things wouldn't be as simple as that. I could see a scenario where NI still exists in it's own right. In fact, it could be very similar to the situation today with Westminster being replaced by the Irish government with certain powers still being devolved to the NI Assembly. If you consider that that the Unionist population of NI would have to be catered for, I don't think this is beyond the realms of possibility as that type of government may make them more comfortable with the UI scenario.

All just thoughts and not intended to take away from anyone else's opinion.

What is the point in continuing partition in a united Ireland? Why should Donegal be separated from Derry? Why should people in Belcoo and Blacklion go to different hospitals, schools etc?

That's your view of what a UI would look like in the case of there being a devolved NI assembly. Not necessarily fact. Whether or not people in Belcoo and Blacklion go to different hospitals would be determined as part of a UI strategy on health I would have thought. That wouldn't meant there still wouldn't be a devolved NI assembly.
Serious question, is your view of a UI one where the Dublin government has complete control north and south? If so, how would you see the unionist community represented politically? DUP part of the Dublin government? Honestly interested in your perspective...

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on February 21, 2020, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2020, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on February 21, 2020, 09:44:18 AM
I'm seriously confused about the discussion on this thread  :o
There's seems to be a lot of anti SF rhetoric from posters north and south.

Because SF carry on, both the coat trailing and the fantasy economics,  is an important obstacle to a united Ireland, nationalists obviously resent this.



QuoteThere's seems to be an assumption that in a UI world, the Dublin government will set all the rules and that NI will fall in behind the taxation, health etc currently in place in ROI.
I'd guess things wouldn't be as simple as that. I could see a scenario where NI still exists in it's own right. In fact, it could be very similar to the situation today with Westminster being replaced by the Irish government with certain powers still being devolved to the NI Assembly. If you consider that that the Unionist population of NI would have to be catered for, I don't think this is beyond the realms of possibility as that type of government may make them more comfortable with the UI scenario.

All just thoughts and not intended to take away from anyone else's opinion.

What is the point in continuing partition in a united Ireland? Why should Donegal be separated from Derry? Why should people in Belcoo and Blacklion go to different hospitals, schools etc?

+1.  Partition has failed everyone, irrespective of religion.  It's just that a large part of the north don't realise it yet due to having public service jobs propped up by the Westminster government.  Was doing a count of immediate friends the other day, 75% of them are working in the civil service in the north.  Although not a scientific analysis, I wouldn't consider that to be normal in any society.  The question has to be asked where is the Intel plant in the north employing thousands, Apple, HP, IBM, Facebook, Google etc. etc. etc.  NI is a basket case, and that needs to be realised by everyone.  Not that the RoI is a utopia either, but removal of partition and the sooner a true all island economy is in place the better for all .... and away from any Westminster influence.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 21, 2020, 05:06:39 PM
Switzerland has something like 22 self Governing Cantons.
They're not doing too bad.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 21, 2020, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2020, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on February 21, 2020, 09:44:18 AM
I'm seriously confused about the discussion on this thread  :o
There's seems to be a lot of anti SF rhetoric from posters north and south.

Because SF carry on, both the coat trailing and the fantasy economics,  is an important obstacle to a united Ireland, nationalists obviously resent this.



QuoteThere's seems to be an assumption that in a UI world, the Dublin government will set all the rules and that NI will fall in behind the taxation, health etc currently in place in ROI.
I'd guess things wouldn't be as simple as that. I could see a scenario where NI still exists in it's own right. In fact, it could be very similar to the situation today with Westminster being replaced by the Irish government with certain powers still being devolved to the NI Assembly. If you consider that that the Unionist population of NI would have to be catered for, I don't think this is beyond the realms of possibility as that type of government may make them more comfortable with the UI scenario.

All just thoughts and not intended to take away from anyone else's opinion.

What is the point in continuing partition in a united Ireland? Why should Donegal be separated from Derry? Why should people in Belcoo and Blacklion go to different hospitals, schools etc?

It'd be a transitional arrangement. Two states have been separate for a century, with not much cooperation until around the time of the Anglo Irish Agreement. You can't just weld them together overnight. I'd say there'd have to be some sort of role for Stormont as a glorified county council in the immediate aftermath of a UI. People talk about East Germany as an example, but I think the more interesting examples are Hong Kong and Macau after the handover to China. They remained as Special Administrative Regions to smooth the transition of power from Britain to China.

Health and education systems have grown apart hugely, it's going to take time to get them aligned, and it'd be an opportunity to reform both for the better. Are there aspects of the northern system that could be adopted in the south, and vice versa? Maybe. It could take five years to figure that out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 21, 2020, 06:05:16 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 21, 2020, 05:51:29 PM
It'd be a transitional arrangement. Two states have been separate for a century, with not much cooperation until around the time of the Anglo Irish Agreement. You can't just weld them together overnight. I'd say there'd have to be some sort of role for Stormont as a glorified county council in the immediate aftermath of a UI. People talk about East Germany as an example, but I think the more interesting examples are Hong Kong and Macau after the handover to China. They remained as Special Administrative Regions to smooth the transition of power from Britain to China.

Health and education systems have grown apart hugely, it's going to take time to get them aligned, and it'd be an opportunity to reform both for the better. Are there aspects of the northern system that could be adopted in the south, and vice versa? Maybe. It could take five years to figure that out.

I think these are terrible examples.
Hong Kong remains a special area for 50 years because its people never wanted to be part of China in the first place, it is not to smooth the transition, it is to delay the transition. If a majority of people in NI vote for a UI then it will not like Hong Kong.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 21, 2020, 06:20:27 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2020, 06:05:16 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 21, 2020, 05:51:29 PM
It'd be a transitional arrangement. Two states have been separate for a century, with not much cooperation until around the time of the Anglo Irish Agreement. You can't just weld them together overnight. I'd say there'd have to be some sort of role for Stormont as a glorified county council in the immediate aftermath of a UI. People talk about East Germany as an example, but I think the more interesting examples are Hong Kong and Macau after the handover to China. They remained as Special Administrative Regions to smooth the transition of power from Britain to China.

Health and education systems have grown apart hugely, it's going to take time to get them aligned, and it'd be an opportunity to reform both for the better. Are there aspects of the northern system that could be adopted in the south, and vice versa? Maybe. It could take five years to figure that out.

I think these are terrible examples.
Hong Kong remains a special area for 50 years because its people never wanted to be part of China in the first place, it is not to smooth the transition, it is to delay the transition. If a majority of people in NI vote for a UI then it will not like Hong Kong.

There'd be a sizable minority in the north opposed to reunification. I think a transition period is essential if the place is as polarised then as it is now. The more progress that's made on desegregating the place (starting with the education system) the less need there would be for a transition period. But you try explaining that to the "we demand a border poll right this minute" crowd in SF.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on February 21, 2020, 09:45:43 PM
I wish Sinn Fein reps would stop tweeting big plastery green white and orange Time For Irish Unity graphics.  Can't see how that wins any hearts and minds in the Unionist or middle ground community, who will be needed and have every right to be accommodated.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 22, 2020, 12:45:02 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on February 21, 2020, 09:45:43 PM
I wish Sinn Fein reps would stop tweeting big plastery green white and orange Time For Irish Unity graphics.  Can't see how that wins any hearts and minds in the Unionist or middle ground community, who will be needed and have every right to be accommodated.
SF's MO is to constantly demand that the Brits deliver something they know full well they're not going to get, so then they whinge to their supporters about how unfairly treated they are at the hands of the evil Brits.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Chief on February 22, 2020, 08:17:27 AM
I'm baffled by the implicit idea by some on here that if one stops asking for something that is how you'll get it...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bannside on February 22, 2020, 09:15:51 AM
Exactly Sportacus. Middle ground unionists who are thinking "you know under the right circumstances a UI might not be so bad" that's where the battle will be won or lost. That's exactly the type of mindset that needs to be won over, SF need to play a bit more to that gallery instead of their own hard core who are already sold. Come out you black and tans politics doesn't provide much inspiration for them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 22, 2020, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: Chief on February 22, 2020, 08:17:27 AM
I'm baffled by the implicit idea by some on here that if one stops asking for something that is how you'll get it...

Asking for it is no use, that's like the kid in Donegal writing to Klopp asking Liverpool to ease up. You need to work for it, blathering about it is no help.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on February 22, 2020, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Chief on February 22, 2020, 08:17:27 AM
I'm baffled by the implicit idea by some on here that if one stops asking for something that is how you'll get it...

You have the ask the right people. SF seem to think that if you pester the Brits for long enough they'll say "Okay then, here's your united Ireland." They need to be asking middle-of-the-road unionists what they can do to make them feel more comfortable in a UI when the inevitable happens.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on February 24, 2020, 01:07:57 PM
Latest UI poll

http://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews//news/northernirelandnews/2020/02/24/news/border-poll-outcome-on-a-knife-edge-survey-suggests-1850028/content.html

You can bet your life on it not getting anywhere near the same coverage as Tonges survey last week. A survey that he himself noted when the dont knows, weighting and voting patterns were taken into count had the figure around 40% pro UI not the 29% spunked all over by the media
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on February 24, 2020, 03:21:00 PM
A few more stats from that poll.

https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/a-majority-favour-a-border-poll-on-the-island-of-ireland-in-the-next-10-years
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 23, 2020, 02:19:44 AM
Interesting letter in the Newsletter
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/letters/unionist-community-getting-older-shrinking-and-needs-get-serious-about-future-2948965
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on August 23, 2020, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 23, 2020, 02:19:44 AM
Interesting letter in the Newsletter
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/letters/unionist-community-getting-older-shrinking-and-needs-get-serious-about-future-2948965

This is the crux of the way forward. Persuade the persuadables
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 01:14:36 PM
To take here minds of the Covid ;D

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1022/1173114-taoiseach-shared-island-north-south/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 22, 2020, 03:40:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 01:14:36 PM
To take here minds of the Covid ;D

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1022/1173114-taoiseach-shared-island-north-south/
[/quote
A border poll won't ever be on Micheál's agenda.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:11:25 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 22, 2020, 03:40:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 01:14:36 PM
To take here minds of the Covid ;D

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1022/1173114-taoiseach-shared-island-north-south/
[/quote
A border poll won't ever be on Micheál's agenda.

If it looks like there is a majority in the 6 counties for unity it'll happen regardless of his "agenda".

I'm fairly convinced there will a border poll in the next five years - the momentum is very clearly in that direction even if the actual result is not as clear.

What is insufferable to me is this attitude that is implied by various southern commentators (and is evident in Micheál's comments) that even if Northern nationalism has a majority, it shouldn't take what it is entitled to and what has been fairly and democratically won.

Instead it should take a perceived moral high ground, wait until it's handy for everyone else, and in the interim live with foreign rule for another few decades or so.

The notion that we achieve a United Ireland by not talking about it directly, or by calling it something else (e.g. A Shared Island) is patently stupid. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:14:22 PM
Chief
1 only the Brit Sec of State can call it in the 6
2 if the 26 vote NO there won't be Unity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:19:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:14:22 PM
Chief
1 only the Brit Sec of State can call it in the 6
2 if the 26 vote NO there won't be Unity.

Correct on both counts but with important qualifications:

1) The SOSNI is obliged to call it in the case a majority becomes evident - so if there is a Northern nationalist majority it happens.
2) Calling a border poll and winning it are separate things. Even if the 26 might say no, that is no basis (either in the GFA or anywhere else) to deny the people their chance to express their constitutional preferences.

For what it's worth I don't think it's a forgone conclusion at all that a border poll would be won, but my gut tells me it would.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:42:39 PM
What will be the  SoS criteria for believing that a Majority might vote to leave the (dis)UK?
Census figures?
Nationalist Parties getting more votes than Unionist ones?
Nationalist Parties getting over 50% of the votes?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Chief on October 22, 2020, 05:41:19 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:42:39 PM
What will be the  SoS criteria for believing that a Majority might vote to leave the (dis)UK?
Census figures?
Nationalist Parties getting more votes than Unionist ones?
Nationalist Parties getting over 50% of the votes?

I think there will a few different opinions on that.

In my view nationalists need either 50% of the votes cast in any election or a majority of seats in an assembly or Westminster election. Either works.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 22, 2020, 05:53:08 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 05:41:19 PM
In my view nationalists need either 50% of the votes cast in any election or a majority of seats in an assembly or Westminster election. Either works.

They already have half the Westminster seats, but they are never going to get 50% of the votes.
Presently you have 39% Nationalist, 41% Unionist and there is a big Alliance and Green bloc of votes, many of these people would vote for a UI if a proper deal was done. The nationalists will likely come to exceed the unionists as soon as the next election, but they are not going to reach 50% for a very long time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on October 22, 2020, 06:59:20 PM
As noted before nationalists have more Westminster seats. If you include people before profit and ignore their spoofing on the subject then nationalists and unionists are level in the assembly. I fully expect all sorts of dirty games to be played to delay a poll. As noted earlier unionists will demand 50% for SDLP and SF which will never happen even if they dwarf the unionist tally. This will of course ignore nationalist leaning small parties and independents but also ignores the ever increasing others who are very pro- European union and would leave a bojo Tory UK in a heart beat. I have mentioned before the SoS will do nothing on the subject until they are taking to the courts to fulfill their commitments
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 07:31:41 PM
I suspect your last sentence may well be the way it will happen.
Meanwhile we are putting up €500m in the Shared Ireland Unit to improve cross border infrastructure, A5 etc.

I know Martin had to satisfy his own crowd plus Varadkar and Ryan in naming his 11 Seanadóiri but he could have picked a "civic unionist" and a "civic nationalist" from the 6 Cos to prove his commitment to Shared Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Chief on October 22, 2020, 07:54:46 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 22, 2020, 05:53:08 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 05:41:19 PM
In my view nationalists need either 50% of the votes cast in any election or a majority of seats in an assembly or Westminster election. Either works.

They already have half the Westminster seats, but they are never going to get 50% of the votes.
Presently you have 39% Nationalist, 41% Unionist and there is a big Alliance and Green bloc of votes, many of these people would vote for a UI if a proper deal was done. The nationalists will likely come to exceed the unionists as soon as the next election, but they are not going to reach 50% for a very long time.

I know they have half the Westminster seats.

In my view that's a mandate for a border poll - it's the same electoral system for example that was used to satisfy the democratic argument for independence in 1917.

I'd be delighted if we called a border poll tomorrow, and generally speaking I don't think it's northern nationalists who fear having one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on October 22, 2020, 10:27:16 PM
Part of the process is the whole "unification by regulation" that someone brought up on this board before. I think it was a John Hume quote. That's already in motion and the Irish Sea border for customs is a huge step forward. You already have all-island electricity grid, all-island tourism and a bigger move into food and agricultural standards. When the border poll comes so much will have been quietly done that it won't be a big shock to economic system. This is not shouting from the rafters stuff but Unionists know it's happening. It will become harder to argue against economic integration, it's less emotive stuff, and that will win the day ahead of political ideology on both sides.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 10:55:13 PM
There will be another Scottish independence referendum before there is a border poll

But if that passes, and at this stage you'd have to say it's likelier it will, it could create a domino effect

I certainly think there was a massive domino effect as regards countries declaring independence in the old communist bloc from 1991 on, and it had been coming for a while

If the Scots go it alone I'd expect you'd see a big surge in Welsh separatism as well
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Taylor on October 23, 2020, 08:02:59 AM
I have not heard much about Welsh independence over the years.

Strange considering how much noise the Scots have made
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on October 23, 2020, 09:05:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 07:31:41 PM
I suspect your last sentence may well be the way it will happen.
Meanwhile we are putting up €500m in the Shared Ireland Unit to improve cross border infrastructure, A5 etc.

I know Martin had to satisfy his own crowd plus Varadkar and Ryan in naming his 11 Seanadóiri but he could have picked a "civic unionist" and a "civic nationalist" from the 6 Cos to prove his commitment to Shared Ireland.

MM doesn't want a United Ireland which is why he didn't pick a civic nationalist/unionist.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 26, 2020, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:19:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:14:22 PM
Chief
1 only the Brit Sec of State can call it in the 6
2 if the 26 vote NO there won't be Unity.

Correct on both counts but with important qualifications:

1) The SOSNI is obliged to call it in the case a majority becomes evident - so if there is a Northern nationalist majority it happens.
2) Calling a border poll and winning it are separate things. Even if the 26 might say no, that is no basis (either in the GFA or anywhere else) to deny the people their chance to express their constitutional preferences.

For what it's worth I don't think it's a forgone conclusion at all that a border poll would be won, but my gut tells me it would.
Your gut is wrong, there is no chance of a UI vote being won in the current circumstances. Those advocating it have failed to demonstrate what the benefits are and people will only vote for change if there is something in it for them. But what a vote would do as in Scotland is give a base from which to work and allow those wanting unity to slowly build a case. Unless something cataclysmic happens that will take decades.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 26, 2020, 09:27:54 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 07:31:41 PM
I suspect your last sentence may well be the way it will happen.
Meanwhile we are putting up €500m in the Shared Ireland Unit to improve cross border infrastructure, A5 etc.

I know Martin had to satisfy his own crowd plus Varadkar and Ryan in naming his 11 Seanadóiri but he could have picked a "civic unionist" and a "civic nationalist" from the 6 Cos to prove his commitment to Shared Ireland.
No chance the gravy train has no room for anyone outside FF.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 09:37:40 AM
We are heading full steam for a de facto Economic United Ireland from 1 January.  I don't think the penny has dropped how severe the Irish Sea Border will be.  Customs and much more will make NI a big turn off for GB business which normally only does a small percentage of its overall trading into NI.  It just won't be worth the hassle from January.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 09:49:50 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 09:37:40 AM
We are heading full steam for a de facto Economic United Ireland from 1 January.  I don't think the penny has dropped how severe the Irish Sea Border will be.  Customs and much more will make NI a big turn off for GB business which normally only does a small percentage of its overall trading into NI.  It just won't be worth the hassle from January.

That (if it's true) relies on there being a deal.

But you are correct on the problems the Irish Sea customs will create and they fact that a lot of people have not yet woken up to them.

Conversely I disagree with you on the business impact. Big business should have little difficulty. The impact on smaller businesses could be crippling though
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 10:17:31 AM
Quote from: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 09:49:50 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 09:37:40 AM
We are heading full steam for a de facto Economic United Ireland from 1 January.  I don't think the penny has dropped how severe the Irish Sea Border will be.  Customs and much more will make NI a big turn off for GB business which normally only does a small percentage of its overall trading into NI.  It just won't be worth the hassle from January.

That (if it's true) relies on there being a deal.

But you are correct on the problems the Irish Sea customs will create and they fact that a lot of people have not yet woken up to them.

Conversely I disagree with you on the business impact. Big business should have little difficulty. The impact on smaller businesses could be crippling though

It actually doesn't rely on there being a deal.  The Ireland Protocol is a legal agreement already in place and stands whether there is a free trade agreement or not.  An FTA would help for example take tariffs out of the equation, but everything else still stands no matter what.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on October 26, 2020, 12:00:19 PM
As per GFA, once the first border poll is called, it sets in train a poll every 7 years .... and that is what unionists fear the most.

I'm of the view that the first poll is winnable, with the ground work being done over the coming few years.

As for the elements who will always exist within loyalism, how they can be appeased is another question entirely.  We definitely don't want another 30+ years of sectarian violence.  But the threat of such cannot be used as an argument against having a border poll, nor can MM's view that one will be divisive.  Of course it will, it's the nature of referendums.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on October 26, 2020, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 26, 2020, 12:00:19 PM
As per GFA, once the first border poll is called, it sets in train a poll every 7 years .... and that is what unionists fear the most.

I'm of the view that the first poll is winnable, with the ground work being done over the coming few years.

As for the elements who will always exist within loyalism, how they can be appeased is another question entirely (Money!).  We definitely don't want another 30+ years of sectarian violence.  But the threat of such cannot be used as an argument against having a border poll, nor can MM's view that one will be divisive.  Of course it will, it's the nature of referendums.

Answer in bold.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 26, 2020, 12:23:16 PM
Doesn't the 7 years thing actually state that another poll may not be held within 7 years of the previous one as opposed to requiring one every 7 years?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on October 26, 2020, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 26, 2020, 12:23:16 PM
Doesn't the 7 years thing actually state that another poll may not be held within 7 years of the previous one as opposed to requiring one every 7 years?

Correct
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 26, 2020, 01:07:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 26, 2020, 12:23:16 PM
Doesn't the 7 years thing actually state that another poll may not be held within 7 years of the previous one as opposed to requiring one every 7 years?

However, if the first poll was anyway close then another one is inevitable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 10:17:31 AM
Quote from: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 09:49:50 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 09:37:40 AM
We are heading full steam for a de facto Economic United Ireland from 1 January.  I don't think the penny has dropped how severe the Irish Sea Border will be.  Customs and much more will make NI a big turn off for GB business which normally only does a small percentage of its overall trading into NI.  It just won't be worth the hassle from January.

That (if it's true) relies on there being a deal.

But you are correct on the problems the Irish Sea customs will create and they fact that a lot of people have not yet woken up to them.

Conversely I disagree with you on the business impact. Big business should have little difficulty. The impact on smaller businesses could be crippling though

It actually doesn't rely on there being a deal.  The Ireland Protocol is a legal agreement already in place and stands whether there is a free trade agreement or not.  An FTA would help for example take tariffs out of the equation, but everything else still stands no matter what.

If there is no deal then the Single Market Bill is primed to blow a hole in the protocol. It's not through Parliament yet so there is a couple of hurdles to go yet including the inevitable legal challenge. But I certainly wouldn't say the Irish Protocol stands no matter what
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 26, 2020, 12:00:19 PM
As per GFA, once the first border poll is called, it sets in train a poll every 7 years .... and that is what unionists fear the most.

It's how amazing how people can read into something the thing they want to hear.

Bizarre to say that the thing in the GFA that unionist fear the most isn't in the GFA
Quote from: balladmaker on October 26, 2020, 12:00:19 PM
I'm of the view that the first poll is winnable, with the ground work being done over the coming few years

Who is going to do this ground work? When are they going to start? What will it look like? What makes you think it will be successful?

Quote from: balladmaker on October 26, 2020, 12:00:19 PM
As for the elements who will always exist within loyalism, how they can be appeased is another question entirely.  We definitely don't want another 30+ years of sectarian violence.  But the threat of such cannot be used as an argument against having a border poll, nor can MM's view that one will be divisive.  Of course it will, it's the nature of referendums.

The divisive nature of a referendum and the threat of loyalist violence absolutely cannot be used as a reason to never have a referendum. But divisiveness and violence are pretty terrible consequences and therefore there needs to be caution in using such a referendum. A referendum shouldn't be used as a tactic to stir divisiveness. Anyway the more important issue is that those issues are unlikely to encourage a pro UI vote in RoI and its that that will probably bring about the required caution


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 10:17:31 AM
Quote from: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 09:49:50 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 09:37:40 AM
We are heading full steam for a de facto Economic United Ireland from 1 January.  I don't think the penny has dropped how severe the Irish Sea Border will be.  Customs and much more will make NI a big turn off for GB business which normally only does a small percentage of its overall trading into NI.  It just won't be worth the hassle from January.

That (if it's true) relies on there being a deal.

But you are correct on the problems the Irish Sea customs will create and they fact that a lot of people have not yet woken up to them.

Conversely I disagree with you on the business impact. Big business should have little difficulty. The impact on smaller businesses could be crippling though

It actually doesn't rely on there being a deal.  The Ireland Protocol is a legal agreement already in place and stands whether there is a free trade agreement or not.  An FTA would help for example take tariffs out of the equation, but everything else still stands no matter what.

If there is no deal then the Single Market Bill is primed to blow a hole in the protocol. It's not through Parliament yet so there is a couple of hurdles to go yet including the inevitable legal challenge. But I certainly wouldn't say the Irish Protocol stands no matter what
Yes that's all true, the British Government could opt for chaos. To what end I don't know other than pleasing their hardliners.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 08:28:32 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 10:17:31 AM
Quote from: LCohen on October 26, 2020, 09:49:50 AM
Quote from: Sportacus on October 26, 2020, 09:37:40 AM
We are heading full steam for a de facto Economic United Ireland from 1 January.  I don't think the penny has dropped how severe the Irish Sea Border will be.  Customs and much more will make NI a big turn off for GB business which normally only does a small percentage of its overall trading into NI.  It just won't be worth the hassle from January.

That (if it's true) relies on there being a deal.

But you are correct on the problems the Irish Sea customs will create and they fact that a lot of people have not yet woken up to them.

Conversely I disagree with you on the business impact. Big business should have little difficulty. The impact on smaller businesses could be crippling though

It actually doesn't rely on there being a deal.  The Ireland Protocol is a legal agreement already in place and stands whether there is a free trade agreement or not.  An FTA would help for example take tariffs out of the equation, but everything else still stands no matter what.

If there is no deal then the Single Market Bill is primed to blow a hole in the protocol. It's not through Parliament yet so there is a couple of hurdles to go yet including the inevitable legal challenge. But I certainly wouldn't say the Irish Protocol stands no matter what
Yes that's all true, the British Government could opt for chaos. To what end I don't know other than pleasing their hardliners.

The end is a better deal down the line.

Their flawless logic works something like this.

UK threaten do a deal or we will kill ourselves.
To prove we are serious we will cut of one of our fingers.
EU will take this very seriously, panic and roll over.
Uk get a world beating, moonshot, worldy deal that even Trump has to admit is better than anything he could ever of dreamed of negotiating.
EU get to eat fish
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 26, 2020, 05:35:26 PM
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/voting-on-irish-unity-without-follow-up-plan-poses-grave-risks-study-1.4420599?mode=amp
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on January 20, 2021, 08:21:52 PM
George Osbourne the Conservative ex MP now chief editor of the London Standard claims that   Ni is heading toward a united ireland and the English wont care one jot.

He said that by "unleashing" English nationalism, Brexit has made the future of the UK the central political issue of the coming decade.
Northern Ireland is "heading for the exit door" from the UK
The Northern Ireland Protocol means the country follows the EU's rules on matters like animal product standards.
"By remaining in the EU single market, it is for all economic intents and purposes now slowly becoming part of a united Ireland," wrote Mr Osborne.
"Its prosperity now depends on its relationship with Dublin (and Brussels), not London. The politics will follow.
"Northern Irish unionists always feared the mainland was not sufficiently committed to their cause.
"Now their short-sighted support for Brexit (and unbelievably stupid decision to torpedo Theresa May's deal that avoided separate Irish arrangements) has made those fears a reality.

"It pains me to report that most here and abroad will not care."

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/english-will-not-care-if-northern-ireland-leaves-uk-for-united-ireland-says-former-chancellor-39988161.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on January 20, 2021, 10:40:52 PM
A united island first.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on January 20, 2021, 11:34:09 PM
Quote from: restorepride on January 20, 2021, 10:40:52 PM
A united island first.

What does this actually mean?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on January 22, 2021, 12:30:13 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 20, 2021, 11:34:09 PM
Quote from: restorepride on January 20, 2021, 10:40:52 PM
A united island first.

What does this actually mean?
Trying to develop a mindset where the population of an island sees the benefits of that eg a all-island approach to Covid would have had much more effect, imo.  The economic future after Brexit points towards an 'all-island' solution and the term may be more palatable or less threating to some sections of the community.  Just a thought to try and shape thinking.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 07:28:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Be interesting to see poll results south of the border
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:33:03 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 07:28:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Be interesting to see poll results south of the border

They'd comfortably be in the 60s.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ardtole on January 23, 2021, 07:42:43 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:33:03 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 07:28:42 PM
Quote from: RedHa88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Be interesting to see poll results south of the border

They'd comfortably be in the 60s.
Unfortunately, I wouldnt be as optimistic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on January 23, 2021, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: restorepride on January 20, 2021, 10:40:52 PM
A united island first.

50+1 is all it needs. A unionist vote is not more important than a nationalist vote. They are equal. Those days are over. 50+1.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on January 23, 2021, 08:13:57 PM
Data from a Lucid poll in January 2020.

46.8% remain in UK
45.4% for a UI
7.8% Don't knows
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on January 23, 2021, 08:48:24 PM
Westminster won't grant a border poll until there's a sequence of opinion polls showing a majority in favour of a UI I'd say.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 23, 2021, 09:11:48 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

Well when your southern Irish lads turned their back on ya......

🥤
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 23, 2021, 09:16:18 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.
There will be a census, think it may be done online. Won't make nice reading for the sally rods, but like you say a lot of people describing themselves as "northern" Irish these days  ???
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 23, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

It has no chance when you have parties like FFG who were willing to turn a blind eye to British state atrocities on this island as long as they could cling to their power and an elite ruling class in their state.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 23, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

It has no chance when you have parties like FFG who were willing to turn a blind eye to British state atrocities on this island as long as they could cling to their power and an elite ruling class in their state.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.

Lol, how can you call  Republic a failed state, might be many things but that's not one
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on January 23, 2021, 10:25:04 PM
The Brexit Protocol is giving the North some of the pain of a United Ireland without any of the joy.  It's another step, but there's not much upside.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 24, 2021, 12:18:10 AM
From tomorrow's Times

In Northern Ireland, a majority — 51 per cent to 44 per cent — want a referendum about the border within the next five years. And unionists hold only a slender lead over those who want a united Ireland now — 47 per cent to 42 per cent — but another 11% are undecided, enough to threaten the future of the UK.

The LucidTalk survey in Northern Ireland found that among those aged under 45, supporters of Irish reunification outnumber those who want to stay in the UK by 47 per cent to 46 per cent...

The polls show that voters in all four corners of the land expect Scotland to become independent within the next 10 years — by margins far in excess of two to one in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Northern Irish voters also think there will be a united Ireland within 10 years by a margin of 48 per cent to 44 per cent.

The LucidTalk survey in Northern Ireland found that among those aged under 45, supporters of Irish reunification outnumber those who want to stay in the UK by 47 per cent to 46 per cent.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 24, 2021, 01:04:06 AM
Any boarders actually take part in this poll? How many are polled?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 24, 2021, 01:16:55 AM
(https://nuk-tnl-deck-prod-static.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/41918fafde6dfc64749d3a0442d086c1.jpg)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on January 24, 2021, 01:23:25 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 24, 2021, 01:04:06 AM
Any boarders actually take part in this poll? How many are polled?

I did.  As previous post, 2392 polled in the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on January 24, 2021, 02:26:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on January 24, 2021, 01:23:25 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 24, 2021, 01:04:06 AM
Any boarders actually take part in this poll? How many are polled?

I did.  As previous post, 2392 polled in the north.

I did too, I'm registered with Lucidtalk and get invite emails from them when they run these things.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 10:07:33 AM
Someones getting worried😄

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40213094.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on January 24, 2021, 10:53:09 AM
I did the poll too. It's easy to sign up to lucid talk. As for Arlene wasn't she goading bring it on not too long ago. Didn't see her warning about a divisive Brexit poll either the d1ck
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on January 24, 2021, 11:02:28 AM
The usual suspect on twitter claiming the poll is rubbish. Funnily enough the latest LT poll shows a dip in support for UI compared to last time. Unionism prefers the NILT  polls which involve face to face questioning. Don't know when you last had to go to a polling station and tell someone who you are voting for but these polls are gospel for unionism they also have the SF vote under 10%  ffs. Sammy Wilson not too long ago was arguing that sure good loyalists don't have access to the internet. I'm not joking!! I think the most interesting thing about any future referendum is how the Alliance and Greens deal with it without upsetting a chunk of their voters either way. Don't think a vote on an individual basis will cut it during the build up to an actual referendum. PBP will have to stop spoofing too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 11:13:58 AM
With Unionism and Nationalism neck and neck Alliance and Green voters will be the decision makers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 23, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

It has no chance when you have parties like FFG who were willing to turn a blind eye to British state atrocities on this island as long as they could cling to their power and an elite ruling class in their state.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.

Lol, how can you call  Republic a failed state, might be many things but that's not one

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on January 24, 2021, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 10:07:33 AM
Someones getting worried😄

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40213094.html

'In Northern Ireland, 47% still want to remain in the UK, with 42% in favour of a United Ireland and a significant proportion – 11% – undecided.'

The undecideds will sway it.  Always wondered how many of a catholic background in the north would vote to remain part of the union.  Looks to be quite a few still. With the Civil Service being a major employer in the north, I assume this would be a factor for anyone employed by UK government when it comes to the unification. Anyone here in the civil service who would share their viewpoint?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 24, 2021, 11:49:03 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on January 24, 2021, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 10:07:33 AM
Someones getting worried😄

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40213094.html

'In Northern Ireland, 47% still want to remain in the UK, with 42% in favour of a United Ireland and a significant proportion – 11% – undecided.'

The undecideds will sway it.  Always wondered how many of a catholic background in the north would vote to remain part of the union.  Looks to be quite a few still. With the Civil Service being a major employer in the north, I assume this would be a factor for anyone employed by UK government when it comes to the unification. Anyone here in the civil service who would share their viewpoint?

But surely these jobs would transfer to a similar service within a UI or does the south not have a civil service?

There'll be hand over periods and job security written into these agreements if it were to happen, pensions would be secured also I'd assume, otherwise you'll get people hanging back
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on January 24, 2021, 12:07:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 24, 2021, 11:49:03 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on January 24, 2021, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 10:07:33 AM
Someones getting worried😄

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40213094.html

'In Northern Ireland, 47% still want to remain in the UK, with 42% in favour of a United Ireland and a significant proportion – 11% – undecided.'

The undecideds will sway it.  Always wondered how many of a catholic background in the north would vote to remain part of the union.  Looks to be quite a few still. With the Civil Service being a major employer in the north, I assume this would be a factor for anyone employed by UK government when it comes to the unification. Anyone here in the civil service who would share their viewpoint?

But surely these jobs would transfer to a similar service within a UI or does the south not have a civil service?

There'll be hand over periods and job security written into these agreements if it were to happen, pensions would be secured also I'd assume, otherwise you'll get people hanging back

The south have a massively inflated Civil Service as well and there would need to be a streamlining should a UI happen.

Will 5 years be enough time to call a referendum and guarantee a result for a UI? I'm not so sure. You would think that Sinn Fein will get in next time there's a General Election down south and depending on how that goes will go a long way to making the case for or against!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 12:29:40 PM
Quote from: screenexile on January 24, 2021, 12:07:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 24, 2021, 11:49:03 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on January 24, 2021, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 10:07:33 AM
Someones getting worried😄

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40213094.html

'In Northern Ireland, 47% still want to remain in the UK, with 42% in favour of a United Ireland and a significant proportion – 11% – undecided.'

The undecideds will sway it.  Always wondered how many of a catholic background in the north would vote to remain part of the union.  Looks to be quite a few still. With the Civil Service being a major employer in the north, I assume this would be a factor for anyone employed by UK government when it comes to the unification. Anyone here in the civil service who would share their viewpoint?

But surely these jobs would transfer to a similar service within a UI or does the south not have a civil service?

There'll be hand over periods and job security written into these agreements if it were to happen, pensions would be secured also I'd assume, otherwise you'll get people hanging back

The south have a massively inflated Civil Service

Totally untrue
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_sector_size
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on January 24, 2021, 01:06:08 PM
Fair enough happy to be corrected... it was when I lived there which was just before decentralisation but it seems to be fairly under control now.

Can't imagine they would be able to fit in the North's 25,000 employees. What way are the Civil Service structured in NI? Do they take on a lot of mainland UK work because of the lower cost of labour?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 01:26:18 PM
What happened when Czechoslovakia separated?
I presume there were detailed arrangements about all sorts of things like pensions, public service employees, public debt etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 24, 2021, 01:33:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on January 24, 2021, 01:06:08 PM
Fair enough happy to be corrected... it was when I lived there which was just before decentralisation but it seems to be fairly under control now.

Can't imagine they would be able to fit in the North's 25,000 employees. What way are the Civil Service structured in NI? Do they take on a lot of mainland UK work because of the lower cost of labour?

Certainly hope so. NICS is an absolute disgrace and making at least half of it redundant would do wonders for the ppl of the North.
I don't think they do any GB work. In fact a lot of the work they do is so substandard it takes years to right it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 24, 2021, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 23, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

It has no chance when you have parties like FFG who were willing to turn a blind eye to British state atrocities on this island as long as they could cling to their power and an elite ruling class in their state.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.

Lol, how can you call  Republic a failed state, might be many things but that's not one

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.

Good to see we have one strong unionist who will vote No to a United Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 24, 2021, 03:31:21 PM
We have virtually no economy north of the border, totally lopsided east of the Bann, and propped up massively and very disproportionately by public sector
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 24, 2021, 03:47:42 PM
And the 2 main Parties appear to want to keep it that way so as 1 can say Partition is a failure and we need a UI while the other can say we get £10Bn a year from the UK so we need to stay in it.
Hopefully the Commercial and Business sectors can see and make use of the unique situation the North is now in with a foot in Brexit GB and a foot in the EU.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on January 24, 2021, 04:35:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.

Well hopefully you won't be in charge of the yes vote Angelo or you'll have an overwhelming majority voting for the status quo. Just like DUP are vote getters for a United Ireland, those who like to talk down Irish state are vote getters for the Union. Like it or not - the state of Irish economy, the standard of living, the progressiveness of society will have a major impact on how the growing undecideds vote. Fortunately we can say Ireland is number 2 in the world for quality of life, despite what you say, it is one of least corrupt countries in world according to transparency index, it is one of the few economies in Western World that will grow in 2021 despite pandemic, and funny enough despite us being a so called tax haven for Big Tech, we still bring in way more corporation tax per population than for example Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. You can thank Ruari Quinn for that and lots of other politicians have done very good things including Fianna Fáil and Haughey when they had foresight to set up IFSC in 1987. It means young people in North can look to Dublin government and IDA as one capable of generating high quality career opportunities, something that cannot  be said about leaders in London or Belfast. Yes it will be a new country with new constitution, anthem, flag but economy wise it will have more of the South's way of doing things, more IDA than the NI version that gave the big lump of money to that crazy church.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 24, 2021, 05:00:24 PM
Quote from: weareros on January 24, 2021, 04:35:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.

Well hopefully you won't be in charge of the yes vote Angelo or you'll have an overwhelming majority voting for the status quo. Just like DUP are vote getters for a United Ireland, those who like to talk down Irish state are vote getters for the Union. Like it or not - the state of Irish economy, the standard of living, the progressiveness of society will have a major impact on how the growing undecideds vote. Fortunately we can say Ireland is number 2 in the world for quality of life, despite what you say, it is one of least corrupt countries in world according to transparency index, it is one of the few economies in Western World that will grow in 2021 despite pandemic, and funny enough despite us being a so called tax haven for Big Tech, we still bring in way more corporation tax per population than for example Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. You can thank Ruari Quinn for that and lots of other politicians have done very good things including Fianna Fáil and Haughey when they had foresight to set up IFSC in 1987. It means young people in North can look to Dublin government and IDA as one capable of generating high quality career opportunities, something that cannot  be said about leaders in London or Belfast. Yes it will be a new country with new constitution, anthem, flag but economy wise it will have more of the South's way of doing things, more IDA than the NI version that gave the big lump of money to that crazy church.

Ignore him lad, he has a shinner agenda cloaked in moaning, begruderey and disinguinity. Facts are facts , Irish republic has come on leaps and bounds while we regress year on year under DUP/SF rule
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:53:07 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 24, 2021, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 23, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

It has no chance when you have parties like FFG who were willing to turn a blind eye to British state atrocities on this island as long as they could cling to their power and an elite ruling class in their state.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.

Lol, how can you call  Republic a failed state, might be many things but that's not one

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.

Good to see we have one strong unionist who will vote No to a United Ireland

I will be voting yes to reunification.

Reunification frightens you and your rotten state.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on January 25, 2021, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 24, 2021, 05:00:24 PM
Ignore him lad, he has a shinner agenda cloaked in moaning, begruderey and disinguinity. Facts are facts , Irish republic has come on leaps and bounds while we regress year on year under DUP/SF rule

So people with an agenda with regards to SF should be ignored? Who'll ever talk to you if that's the case?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:52 AM
Quote from: weareros on January 24, 2021, 04:35:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.

Well hopefully you won't be in charge of the yes vote Angelo or you'll have an overwhelming majority voting for the status quo. Just like DUP are vote getters for a United Ireland, those who like to talk down Irish state are vote getters for the Union. Like it or not - the state of Irish economy, the standard of living, the progressiveness of society will have a major impact on how the growing undecideds vote. Fortunately we can say Ireland is number 2 in the world for quality of life, despite what you say, it is one of least corrupt countries in world according to transparency index, it is one of the few economies in Western World that will grow in 2021 despite pandemic, and funny enough despite us being a so called tax haven for Big Tech, we still bring in way more corporation tax per population than for example Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. You can thank Ruari Quinn for that and lots of other politicians have done very good things including Fianna Fáil and Haughey when they had foresight to set up IFSC in 1987. It means young people in North can look to Dublin government and IDA as one capable of generating high quality career opportunities, something that cannot  be said about leaders in London or Belfast. Yes it will be a new country with new constitution, anthem, flag but economy wise it will have more of the South's way of doing things, more IDA than the NI version that gave the big lump of money to that crazy church.

So you disagree you have homeless crisis?

You reject the assertion that you have a two tier health system, where people are priced out of healthcare because of how much they earn and afford to pay?

You reject the corruption labels? Haughey, Bertie, Lowry, Lawlor, Michael Martin, Burke, Flynn etc etc? The tribunals, the cosy relationships with bakers, billionaires and property developers?

This is the sort of deluded, entitled attitude that you free staters have. We aren't voting for the north to go down and join the southern establishment. We are voting for a new Ireland, the end of partition, the end of two rotten states.

Unionist bigotry and southern greed and corruption will hopefully become a thing of the past. That bit seems to worry the likes of you, FF, FG, RTE, Denis O'Brien, Larry Goodman etc.

In your post you are praising Haughey, a gangster who told people to tighten their belts as we was having million pound personal loans written off by his friends in high places. That just sums up the free state, an elitist ruling class who have managed to make society a two tier states, the have and have nots. You have foisted huge national debt on the generations to come, your youth cannot even afford to buy a home anymore, homelessness levels are through the roof, the health service is a disgrace and unless you can afford private healthcare you might as well forget about it.

Clearly you are the type of conscienceless chap who votes FFG from the shire of Roscommon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 10:11:53 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/colum-eastwood-seamus-mallon-s-offer-is-still-on-the-table-if-unionism-is-interested-1.4466646?mode=amp
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on January 25, 2021, 10:33:22 AM
Seamus Mallon also was of the view that 50%+1 should not be enough to secure reunification - a view which went against the terms laid out in the very agreement that he himself helped negotiate. In fact, he went further and argued for what he called "parallel consent" whereby not just a majority of the population as s unit would have to support reunification, but rather a majority within the two communities should. In other words, Seamus wanted to make Irish reunification fundamentally impossible to achieve.

Colum doesn't mention that bit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 25, 2021, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on January 25, 2021, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 24, 2021, 05:00:24 PM
Ignore him lad, he has a shinner agenda cloaked in moaning, begruderey and disinguinity. Facts are facts , Irish republic has come on leaps and bounds while we regress year on year under DUP/SF rule

So people with an agenda with regards to SF should be ignored? Who'll ever talk to you if that's the case?

If it leaves someone so blinded they ignore hard real facts yes- sheep people
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 25, 2021, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on January 25, 2021, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 24, 2021, 05:00:24 PM
Ignore him lad, he has a shinner agenda cloaked in moaning, begruderey and disinguinity. Facts are facts , Irish republic has come on leaps and bounds while we regress year on year under DUP/SF rule

So people with an agenda with regards to SF should be ignored? Who'll ever talk to you if that's the case?

If it leaves someone so blinded they ignore hard real facts yes- sheep people

You just summed yourself up there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:53:07 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 24, 2021, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 23, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

It has no chance when you have parties like FFG who were willing to turn a blind eye to British state atrocities on this island as long as they could cling to their power and an elite ruling class in their state.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.

Lol, how can you call  Republic a failed state, might be many things but that's not one

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.

Good to see we have one strong unionist who will vote No to a United Ireland

I will be voting yes to reunification.

Reunification frightens you and your rotten state.

But why would you want to be part of a "rotten state"?



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:53:07 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 24, 2021, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 23, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

It has no chance when you have parties like FFG who were willing to turn a blind eye to British state atrocities on this island as long as they could cling to their power and an elite ruling class in their state.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.

Lol, how can you call  Republic a failed state, might be many things but that's not one

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.

Good to see we have one strong unionist who will vote No to a United Ireland

I will be voting yes to reunification.

Reunification frightens you and your rotten state.

But why would you want to be part of a "rotten state"?

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


Now maybe you're just a free state troll or maybe you're just not intelligent, maybe it's just the ego of free staters to think it's you're state and we're only going to be tenants - but that's not what reunification is about and that is why I assume a narrow minded person like you oppose it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 25, 2021, 11:36:36 AM
Have the SDLP, SF or any other pro-unity party set out a detailed plan of how unification would take place? The SNP were able to produce a 600 page document detailing how Scottish independence would be implemented in the event of a YES vote. I know SF produced a 26 page discussion document last year around economic benefits but something a bit more substantial is needed.

The two nationalist parties along with even Alliance surely have to start getting serious about including Irish unity as the primary issue in their manifestos going forward. Time to stop talking about it on Facebook and Twitter and actually get serious about where this country will be in 10 years time.

Mounting pressure from the Scottish for Indyref 2 is casting a shadow over the existence of uk as it stands. Covid is providing a distraction to a certain extent to the impact of Brexit so the polls might change once non-essential retail opens up again and people start to realise the impact it's having on certain goods - saw an article saying you can't bring plants from Britain to NI - garden centre unionists will be livid!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.

Depends if you root the rottenness out.

It will certainly change the political landscape.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 25, 2021, 11:39:49 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.
I agree to a certain extent, DUP and/or UUP would probably cosy up with FG. Imagine the monster that would create!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 11:48:09 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/emma-de-souza-my-generation-deserves-to-have-its-say-on-irish-unity-now-1.4466567?mode=amp
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 25, 2021, 11:50:03 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on January 25, 2021, 10:33:22 AM
Seamus Mallon also was of the view that 50%+1 should not be enough to secure reunification - a view which went against the terms laid out in the very agreement that he himself helped negotiate. In fact, he went further and argued for what he called "parallel consent" whereby not just a majority of the population as s unit would have to support reunification, but rather a majority within the two communities should. In other words, Seamus wanted to make Irish reunification fundamentally impossible to achieve.

Colum doesn't mention that bit.

Because Seamus was talking shite.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 11:58:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:53:07 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 24, 2021, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 24, 2021, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 23, 2021, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 23, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 23, 2021, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 23, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
🚨POLL🚨

@LucidTalk (Northern Ireland)

Support for a United Ireland:

No: 53%
Yes: 47%

(Excludes DK's at 11%)

Sample - 2,392
January 15-18th, 2021



Its getting closer...

Anybody hazzard a guess when a border poll will take place?

10, 20 or 30 years?

We'll need another year or two to see the outworkings or Brexit.

As an aside, I wonder will there be a census this year - are they not usually every 10 years.  If so, the results of that will be interesting.

Although in fairness, there'll be a lot of lads on here ticking the...mmmm...northern irish box.

It has no chance when you have parties like FFG who were willing to turn a blind eye to British state atrocities on this island as long as they could cling to their power and an elite ruling class in their state.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.

Lol, how can you call  Republic a failed state, might be many things but that's not one

Homelessness and poverty
Disgraceful two-tier health service which has 6-700 on hospital trolleys every year with extortionate health insurance required
Inherent and widespread political corruption from FFG since the inception of the state
Institutionalised child abuse in state facilities that was ignored and hidden for decades
Massive national debt burdended on them by the govt to save the wealth of private investors
A culture of selling off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and a brown envelope
A state run by shadowy figures like Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman
The current leaders of the two establishment parties - MM - took a bung from a property developer and LV has been up lately for interfering in the process to judicial appointments to appoint a crony and then leaks confidential documents to his mate.

Good to see we have one strong unionist who will vote No to a United Ireland

I will be voting yes to reunification.

Reunification frightens you and your rotten state.

But why would you want to be part of a "rotten state"?

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


Now maybe you're just a free state troll or maybe you're just not intelligent, maybe it's just the ego of free staters to think it's you're state and we're only going to be tenants - but that's not what reunification is about and that is why I assume a narrow minded person like you oppose it.




And the best advertisement for not having a United Ireland if there are a considerable minority inside Northern Nationalism who think like you.

It's one thing having to deal with the mixture of arrogance and ignorance that the likes of you display here on a regular basis but you then throw the PUL mix into the tank,I don't think so

As regards my lack of education comment,you are blinded by your own stupidity there also.


Edit by Mod5:  Personal insult deleted, user banned for 2 days.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:01:15 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 25, 2021, 11:39:49 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.
I agree to a certain extent, DUP and/or UUP would probably cosy up with FG. Imagine the monster that would create!

Would they though?

I think there would be much resentment there, both have their patches to lose by reunification. Partition suits the establishment parties of the Free State and unionism in the O6. They rule the roost, reunification changes the landscape completely.

If you look at the last assembly elections and the last general election down south. If you combine first pref votes, you are left the following landscape.

SF 25.4%
FF 16.2%
FG 15.2%
DUP 7.5%
Greens 5.8%
UUP 3.5%
SDLP 3.2%
Labour 3.1%
Alliance 2.4%
PBP - 2.3%
SD - 2.1%

What would happen then is you would see smaller parties then be subsumed by some of the bigger ones. Unionist would definitely merge into one mainstream party. I could see the SDLP merging with FF and the likes of the Alliance going in with Labour etc

I think in that situation I see it as inevitable FF/SDLP will pivot one way in the long run and be subsumed either by SF or FG. I would say most likely SF once the state becomes more and more embedded.





Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 11:58:03 AM


deleted sentence here

And the best advertisement for not having a United Ireland if there are a considerable minority inside Northern Nationalism who think like you.

It's one thing having to deal with the mixture of arrogance and ignorance that the likes of you display here on a regular basis but you then throw the PUL mix into the tank,I don't think so

As regards my lack of education comment,you are blinded by your own stupidity there also.

You're the one displaying arrogance, intolerance and ignorance here so no need to project your shortcomings on me.

It's not a case of the north being taken in by the south. It's case of two rotten states coming to an end and a new state forming - it's your arrogance and entitlement that does not allow you see this. It's why you are against reunification, you have a small minded free stater attitude and a misplaced, unfounded sense of superiority that believes the southerners should rule the roost.

In a new Ireland - that does not happen and I look forward to that day.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 11:58:03 AM

deleted sentence here

And the best advertisement for not having a United Ireland if there are a considerable minority inside Northern Nationalism who think like you.

It's one thing having to deal with the mixture of arrogance and ignorance that the likes of you display here on a regular basis but you then throw the PUL mix into the tank,I don't think so

As regards my lack of education comment,you are blinded by your own stupidity there also.

You're the one displaying arrogance, intolerance and ignorance here so no need to project your shortcomings on me.

It's not a case of the north being taken in by the south. It's case of two rotten states coming to an end and a new state forming - it's your arrogance and entitlement that does not allow you see this. It's why you are against reunification, you have a small minded free stater attitude and a misplaced, unfounded sense of superiority that believes the southerners should rule the roost.

In a new Ireland - that does not happen and I look forward to that day.

point out to me where I said that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 11:58:03 AM


deleted sentence here

And the best advertisement for not having a United Ireland if there are a considerable minority inside Northern Nationalism who think like you.

It's one thing having to deal with the mixture of arrogance and ignorance that the likes of you display here on a regular basis but you then throw the PUL mix into the tank,I don't think so

As regards my lack of education comment,you are blinded by your own stupidity there also.

You're the one displaying arrogance, intolerance and ignorance here so no need to project your shortcomings on me.

It's not a case of the north being taken in by the south. It's case of two rotten states coming to an end and a new state forming - it's your arrogance and entitlement that does not allow you see this. It's why you are against reunification, you have a small minded free stater attitude and a misplaced, unfounded sense of superiority that believes the southerners should rule the roost.

In a new Ireland - that does not happen and I look forward to that day.

point out to me where I said that?

Well you're disputing the point?

Reunification means partition of the island comes to an end, two failed states come to an end and a new state is formed. It is not a case of the north being taken in by the south.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:25:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 11:58:03 AM


deleted sentence here

And the best advertisement for not having a United Ireland if there are a considerable minority inside Northern Nationalism who think like you.

It's one thing having to deal with the mixture of arrogance and ignorance that the likes of you display here on a regular basis but you then throw the PUL mix into the tank,I don't think so

As regards my lack of education comment,you are blinded by your own stupidity there also.

You're the one displaying arrogance, intolerance and ignorance here so no need to project your shortcomings on me.

It's not a case of the north being taken in by the south. It's case of two rotten states coming to an end and a new state forming - it's your arrogance and entitlement that does not allow you see this. It's why you are against reunification, you have a small minded free stater attitude and a misplaced, unfounded sense of superiority that believes the southerners should rule the roost.

In a new Ireland - that does not happen and I look forward to that day.

point out to me where I said that?

Well you're disputing the point?

Reunification means partition of the island comes to an end, two failed states come to an end and a new state is formed. It is not a case of the north being taken in by the south.

Point out to me where i said it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:31:38 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:25:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 11:58:03 AM


deleted sentence here

And the best advertisement for not having a United Ireland if there are a considerable minority inside Northern Nationalism who think like you.

It's one thing having to deal with the mixture of arrogance and ignorance that the likes of you display here on a regular basis but you then throw the PUL mix into the tank,I don't think so

As regards my lack of education comment,you are blinded by your own stupidity there also.

You're the one displaying arrogance, intolerance and ignorance here so no need to project your shortcomings on me.

It's not a case of the north being taken in by the south. It's case of two rotten states coming to an end and a new state forming - it's your arrogance and entitlement that does not allow you see this. It's why you are against reunification, you have a small minded free stater attitude and a misplaced, unfounded sense of superiority that believes the southerners should rule the roost.

In a new Ireland - that does not happen and I look forward to that day.

point out to me where I said that?

Well you're disputing the point?

Reunification means partition of the island comes to an end, two failed states come to an end and a new state is formed. It is not a case of the north being taken in by the south.

Point out to me where i said it

I just pointed out that you disputed the core point in my post. Do you normally go around disagreeing with things you agree with?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 12:37:26 PM
The IGNORE function Clonad ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 25, 2021, 12:47:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:01:15 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 25, 2021, 11:39:49 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.
I agree to a certain extent, DUP and/or UUP would probably cosy up with FG. Imagine the monster that would create!

Would they though?

I think there would be much resentment there, both have their patches to lose by reunification. Partition suits the establishment parties of the Free State and unionism in the O6. They rule the roost, reunification changes the landscape completely.

If you look at the last assembly elections and the last general election down south. If you combine first pref votes, you are left the following landscape.

SF 25.4%
FF 16.2%
FG 15.2%
DUP 7.5%
Greens 5.8%
UUP 3.5%
SDLP 3.2%
Labour 3.1%
Alliance 2.4%
PBP - 2.3%
SD - 2.1%

What would happen then is you would see smaller parties then be subsumed by some of the bigger ones. Unionist would definitely merge into one mainstream party. I could see the SDLP merging with FF and the likes of the Alliance going in with Labour etc

I think in that situation I see it as inevitable FF/SDLP will pivot one way in the long run and be subsumed either by SF or FG. I would say most likely SF once the state becomes more and more embedded.

Some mad theories there sur
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 25, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.

Depends if you root the rottenness out.

It will certainly change the political landscape.

Who's going to root out anything? People are still going to vote for the same rubbish politicians that they have always voted for.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.

Depends if you root the rottenness out.

It will certainly change the political landscape.

Who's going to root out anything? People are still going to vote for the same rubbish politicians that they have always voted for.

It changes the landscape. Time would tell anyway. Unionism have ruled the roost in the O6 for a century.

FF/FG down south for a history, reunification changes that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:53:41 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 12:37:26 PM
The IGNORE function Clonad ;)

Ah yes, the lad who has to ignore me because he is scared witless about having me expose his small minded, humourless nonsense.

Yet oddly enough the can't stop reading my posts.

I'm wondering which is more pathetic, your fear of me or your completely inability to exercise restraint that you need to use an ignore function. Got fed up of reporting my posts yet, sweetcheeks?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:56:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 12:37:26 PM
The IGNORE function Clonad ;)

Hes one mixed up Puppy in fairness Ross

more to be pitied than anything else, thank f**k he represents no one only himself
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 25, 2021, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.

Depends if you root the rottenness out.

It will certainly change the political landscape.

Who's going to root out anything? People are still going to vote for the same rubbish politicians that they have always voted for.

It changes the landscape. Time would tell anyway. Unionism have ruled the roost in the O6 for a century.

FF/FG down south for a history, reunification changes that.

It does Angelo but at the same time you need to understand that the thought of SF calling the shots in a UI Government will scare the bejaysus out of the middle ground needed in the wee 6 to actually achieve a UI.

I know the Shinners want a socialist 32 County republic, but I'd take a 32 county republic for the hear and now and work on the socialist aspect at a later date and to that end I think a 32 county Ireland has more chance of happening with the likes of a Coveney at the helm of a coalition government than Mary Lou or even Pierce Doherty at the helm.

Shinners should seriously think about stepping aside to allow a united Ireland to actually happen.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on January 25, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 25, 2021, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.

Depends if you root the rottenness out.

It will certainly change the political landscape.

Who's going to root out anything? People are still going to vote for the same rubbish politicians that they have always voted for.

It changes the landscape. Time would tell anyway. Unionism have ruled the roost in the O6 for a century.

FF/FG down south for a history, reunification changes that.

It does Angelo but at the same time you need to understand that the thought of SF calling the shots in a UI Government will scare the bejaysus out of the middle ground needed in the wee 6 to actually achieve a UI.

I know the Shinners want a socialist 32 County republic, but I'd take a 32 county republic for the hear and now and work on the socialist aspect at a later date and to that end I think a 32 county Ireland has more chance of happening with the likes of a Coveney at the helm of a coalition government than Mary Lou or even Pierce Doherty at the helm.

Shinners should seriously think about stepping aside to allow a united Ireland to actually happen.

+1

There is another issue with that though, in that if SF step aside, there are no other parties making a serious push for it

I am not convinced that either of the main parties in the 26 are serious about it as a concept
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 25, 2021, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

100%
I worked all over the republic in 2000's, totally blown away by economic growth, and yes Dublin still gets most investment but the amount of work outside Dublin also(medical device etc) is very impressive.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 25, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 25, 2021, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.

Depends if you root the rottenness out.

It will certainly change the political landscape.

Who's going to root out anything? People are still going to vote for the same rubbish politicians that they have always voted for.

It changes the landscape. Time would tell anyway. Unionism have ruled the roost in the O6 for a century.

FF/FG down south for a history, reunification changes that.

It does Angelo but at the same time you need to understand that the thought of SF calling the shots in a UI Government will scare the bejaysus out of the middle ground needed in the wee 6 to actually achieve a UI.

I know the Shinners want a socialist 32 County republic, but I'd take a 32 county republic for the hear and now and work on the socialist aspect at a later date and to that end I think a 32 county Ireland has more chance of happening with the likes of a Coveney at the helm of a coalition government than Mary Lou or even Pierce Doherty at the helm.

Shinners should seriously think about stepping aside to allow a united Ireland to actually happen.

+1

There is another issue with that though, in that if SF step aside, there are no other parties making a serious push for it

I am not convinced that either of the main parties in the 26 are serious about it as a concept

The reality of reunification is SF will be the kingmakers, they are by far and away the largest party on this island presently and there's no getting away from that reality.

Neither FF or FG want this, although I do think FF are much more divided on this internally but Martin is definitely a partitionist and closely aligned with the element of the party tainted in corruption and vested interests.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 25, 2021, 01:19:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 25, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 25, 2021, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.

Depends if you root the rottenness out.

It will certainly change the political landscape.

Who's going to root out anything? People are still going to vote for the same rubbish politicians that they have always voted for.

It changes the landscape. Time would tell anyway. Unionism have ruled the roost in the O6 for a century.

FF/FG down south for a history, reunification changes that.

It does Angelo but at the same time you need to understand that the thought of SF calling the shots in a UI Government will scare the bejaysus out of the middle ground needed in the wee 6 to actually achieve a UI.

I know the Shinners want a socialist 32 County republic, but I'd take a 32 county republic for the hear and now and work on the socialist aspect at a later date and to that end I think a 32 county Ireland has more chance of happening with the likes of a Coveney at the helm of a coalition government than Mary Lou or even Pierce Doherty at the helm.

Shinners should seriously think about stepping aside to allow a united Ireland to actually happen.

+1

There is another issue with that though, in that if SF step aside, there are no other parties making a serious push for it

I am not convinced that either of the main parties in the 26 are serious about it as a concept

The reality of reunification is SF will be the kingmakers, they are by far and away the largest party on this island presently and there's no getting away from that reality.

Neither FF or FG want this, although I do think FF are much more divided on this internally but Martin is definitely a partitionist and closely aligned with the element of the party tainted in corruption and vested interests.

If we get a UI SF will lose its steam, history has taught us that. They will be just another party with no USP and a fairly low calibre of politician.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

Yet why have they a two tier health service with the public health system seeing 600-700 people lying on hospital trolleys every year, working class people being priced out healthcare?

Why have you such issues with homelessness and where being able to afford a home is a pipedream for most of the generation in their 20s?

You try and spin it anyway you want, the free state is a failed statelet and time and time again, the vested interests are looked after at the cost of the people.

Look at the ever widening welath inequality in the 26 that grows bigger and bigger every year. Look at how the FS government consistently pilfer off state resources and services to the private sector so their billionaire pals can gouge the working man for a few quid more to vital services and resources. They can vote to not pay their student nurses but are happy to overpay a billionaire €10m and refuse to look for it back.

The Free State is rotten and mired in corruption.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:23:06 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 25, 2021, 01:19:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 25, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 25, 2021, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: five points on January 25, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 11:18:24 AM

Clearly you dropped out of school very early and can't read, my earlier post that you replied to covered that. I don't want to be part of your rotten state. Reunification is about the end of two rotten states and the formation of a new state. It's frustrating having to deal with people like you and having to repeat myself because you are a little bit dim but here it goes. My earlier post, that you quoted and replied to, the important bits in bold.

The problem with a lot of partitionists down south is that they think it's a case of the north joining their state, it will be nothing of the sort. It will be a new state forming from two failed ones.


You are of course correct that both states on the island have failed. Both are indeed rotten to the core.

But I can't see how reunification would cure this. The branding will be different, but the rottenness will remain.

Depends if you root the rottenness out.

It will certainly change the political landscape.

Who's going to root out anything? People are still going to vote for the same rubbish politicians that they have always voted for.

It changes the landscape. Time would tell anyway. Unionism have ruled the roost in the O6 for a century.

FF/FG down south for a history, reunification changes that.

It does Angelo but at the same time you need to understand that the thought of SF calling the shots in a UI Government will scare the bejaysus out of the middle ground needed in the wee 6 to actually achieve a UI.

I know the Shinners want a socialist 32 County republic, but I'd take a 32 county republic for the hear and now and work on the socialist aspect at a later date and to that end I think a 32 county Ireland has more chance of happening with the likes of a Coveney at the helm of a coalition government than Mary Lou or even Pierce Doherty at the helm.

Shinners should seriously think about stepping aside to allow a united Ireland to actually happen.

+1

There is another issue with that though, in that if SF step aside, there are no other parties making a serious push for it

I am not convinced that either of the main parties in the 26 are serious about it as a concept

The reality of reunification is SF will be the kingmakers, they are by far and away the largest party on this island presently and there's no getting away from that reality.

Neither FF or FG want this, although I do think FF are much more divided on this internally but Martin is definitely a partitionist and closely aligned with the element of the party tainted in corruption and vested interests.

If we get a UI SF will lose its steam, history has taught us that. They will be just another party with no USP and a fairly low calibre of politician.

SF are the largest party on this presently, a UI will see them have their chance at power and the people will then judge them on it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on January 25, 2021, 01:29:37 PM
We'd be better off just getting reunification first and working out our differences after...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 25, 2021, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

100%
I worked all over the republic in 2000's, totally blown away by economic growth, and yes Dublin still gets most investment but the amount of work outside Dublin also(medical device etc) is very impressive.

the Dublin Belfast Corridor would be a powerhouse of Industry in a UI and that's not discounting the need for a balanced regional plan for everywhere else on the island also

its madness for example that there's no motorway between Derry and Belfast or between Limerick and Cork and that's just for starters.

You hear the narrative the whole time of the South cant afford us.

well maybe if the northern section of the economy was to double to €80bn or €90bn in a United Ireland economy,there wouldnt any issue with it paying its way and even at that its under performing pro rata to what it should be at €120bn.

In blunt terms the NI economy is performing at a third of its potential relative to the south
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 01:32:11 PM
Demographics are destiny and this clamour for a border poll is only going to move in one direction. The outworkings of Brexit and the very fact that a hardline ERG type Tory government have allowed the north to be cast slightly adrift is a very significant decision in itself. Whilst I don't think that it is immediately impending, I think that a border poll will happen within 5-15 years. The only thing that would accelerate that, would be a successful Scottish Indy Referendum. Were that to happen the UK would be finished as a credible entity anyway.

There is a Census in the north this year after which it will confirm another slight move towards a pro nationalist majority but the battle ground in any future poll will be the 20% of others in the middle. That is where the argument will be won or lost - with Alliance type voters. Therefore there must be solid economic reasons presented. Long term I believe it is in everyone's best economic interests to see a unified island but most people don't look beyond the next few years. Will a post EU English government continue to pay £11bn annually to subsidise the state ad infinitum, I'm not so sure.   

SF being in government in the south (which is quite likely by the time any poll is called) may actually hinder the chance of a successful poll result in the north. Then there is a whole argument as to how a 'New Ireland' or whatever you want to call it will look like. There is a whole host of work to be carried out before any successful poll campaign.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

Yet why have they a two tier health service with the public health system seeing 600-700 people lying on hospital trolleys every year, working class people being priced out healthcare?

Why have you such issues with homelessness and where being able to afford a home is a pipedream for most of the generation in their 20s?

You try and spin it anyway you want, the free state is a failed statelet and time and time again, the vested interests are looked after at the cost of the people.

Look at the ever widening welath inequality in the 26 that grows bigger and bigger every year. Look at how the FS government consistently pilfer off state resources and services to the private sector so their billionaire pals can gouge the working man for a few quid more to vital services and resources. They can vote to not pay their student nurses but are happy to overpay a billionaire €10m and refuse to look for it back.

The Free State is rotten and mired in corruption.


you are sounding more and more like Jim Alister with every passing comment son.

200,000 on NHS waiting lists in NI

10,000 Families Homeless in NI



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 25, 2021, 01:58:46 PM
Anyone who is bemoaning the state of the ROI and ignoring the state of NI, in which lets not forget SF have been in power for over 10 years would want to just steady up and think about that. NI's government is a mess. It's CS is bloated, incompetent, overpaid and underworked. The massive, massive financial benefits to reunification just cannot be ignored.

Additionally with the Irish Sea Border and the inability to ship goods from GB to NI has already started a shift towards the ROI and EU. Supply lines change. Businesses adapt and overcome. The reunification process won't be just the case of a vote and then a huge change, it has already started ever so slowly and quietly. It'll be so subtle that you'll not even notice it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 02:00:47 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 25, 2021, 01:58:46 PM
Anyone who is bemoaning the state of the ROI and ignoring the state of NI, in which lets not forget SF have been in power for over 10 years would want to just steady up and think about that. NI's government is a mess. It's CS is bloated, incompetent, overpaid and underworked. The massive, massive financial benefits to reunification just cannot be ignored.

Additionally with the Irish Sea Border and the inability to ship goods from GB to NI has already started a shift towards the ROI and EU. Supply lines change. Businesses adapt and overcome. The reunification process won't be just the case of a vote and then a huge change, it has already started ever so slowly and quietly. It'll be so subtle that you'll not even notice it.

The assembly has no power and a loyalist veto.

I wouldn't expect you to grasp the complexities.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

Yet why have they a two tier health service with the public health system seeing 600-700 people lying on hospital trolleys every year, working class people being priced out healthcare?

Why have you such issues with homelessness and where being able to afford a home is a pipedream for most of the generation in their 20s?

You try and spin it anyway you want, the free state is a failed statelet and time and time again, the vested interests are looked after at the cost of the people.

Look at the ever widening welath inequality in the 26 that grows bigger and bigger every year. Look at how the FS government consistently pilfer off state resources and services to the private sector so their billionaire pals can gouge the working man for a few quid more to vital services and resources. They can vote to not pay their student nurses but are happy to overpay a billionaire €10m and refuse to look for it back.

The Free State is rotten and mired in corruption.


you are sounding more and more like Jim Alister with every passing comment son.

200,000 on NHS waiting lists in NI

10,000 Families Homeless in NI

And???? Who is saying the O6 is a success?

Where have I defended the O6? I've repeatedly said both states are failed states. What part of that statement I've repeated multiple times are you failing to grasp?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
The problem those seeking a UI has, is not solely persuading unionists or the undecided. Many nationalists, and I would be one, need to be convinced that our standard of living will not be impaired. I cannot see wages increasing adequately in a UI to cover the increase in living costs. Furthermore having reached a certain age I am very conscious that I will be relying on the health service more and more. When I was younger I would have risked these things. Much as I want to see a UI, I have not seen detail on these issues other than claim and counter claim.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 02:41:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

Yet why have they a two tier health service with the public health system seeing 600-700 people lying on hospital trolleys every year, working class people being priced out healthcare?

Why have you such issues with homelessness and where being able to afford a home is a pipedream for most of the generation in their 20s?

You try and spin it anyway you want, the free state is a failed statelet and time and time again, the vested interests are looked after at the cost of the people.

Look at the ever widening welath inequality in the 26 that grows bigger and bigger every year. Look at how the FS government consistently pilfer off state resources and services to the private sector so their billionaire pals can gouge the working man for a few quid more to vital services and resources. They can vote to not pay their student nurses but are happy to overpay a billionaire €10m and refuse to look for it back.

The Free State is rotten and mired in corruption.


you are sounding more and more like Jim Alister with every passing comment son.

200,000 on NHS waiting lists in NI

10,000 Families Homeless in NI

And???? Who is saying the O6 is a success?

Where have I defended the O6? I've repeatedly said both states are failed states. What part of that statement I've repeated multiple times are you failing to grasp?

The Republic is not a failed state by any metric you wish to employ,bitterness blinds you to that

Your probably one of those work shy handout out addicted Shinner fucks who's pining for a 32 socialist state which means the color of your handout money will change and life will continue on,except this time round you'll be leeching off the Irish state

I've news for you pal

There won't ever be a socialist state here

All you boys will be getting off yer holes getting jobs and paying tax if there's ever a UI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on January 25, 2021, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 02:00:47 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 25, 2021, 01:58:46 PM
Anyone who is bemoaning the state of the ROI and ignoring the state of NI, in which lets not forget SF have been in power for over 10 years would want to just steady up and think about that. NI's government is a mess. It's CS is bloated, incompetent, overpaid and underworked. The massive, massive financial benefits to reunification just cannot be ignored.

Additionally with the Irish Sea Border and the inability to ship goods from GB to NI has already started a shift towards the ROI and EU. Supply lines change. Businesses adapt and overcome. The reunification process won't be just the case of a vote and then a huge change, it has already started ever so slowly and quietly. It'll be so subtle that you'll not even notice it.

The assembly has no power and a loyalist veto.

I wouldn't expect you to grasp the complexities.

Plus if anyone thinks the SDLP would trim down the civil service they are deluded.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 02:49:16 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
The problem those seeking a UI has, is not solely persuading unionists or the undecided. Many nationalists, and I would be one, need to be convinced that our standard of living will not be impaired. I cannot see wages increasing adequately in a UI to cover the increase in living costs. Furthermore having reached a certain age I am very conscious that I will be relying on the health service more and more. When I was younger I would have risked these things. Much as I want to see a UI, I have not seen detail on these issues other than claim and counter claim.

The problems is the overall economic gap, some of other things are mere questions of detail and any reasonable process should address most of these points. The cost of living aspect of things is much touted, but it can be exaggerated. Houses might be expensive in Dublin, but the are less so in Donegal and they won't increase in price in the 6 counties because of unification alone, they will only increase if people's wages increase. People compare the price in the the wee shop in Donegal when they are on holidays with the prices in Tesco in Belfast, which is not really a good comparison. The Aldi shops in 'Blayney or Dundalk (and no doubt elsewhere) have a lot of yellow plates in the car park, suggesting that prices differences are not as great some claim.

All in all though it would be best if NI had some sort of decent local economy and then people could chose without this being a dominating issue. The problem is that it suits the unionists to keep it this way and SF have zero in the way of economic ideas, they specialise in spending money not in earning it.
We hear nonsense about the ROI being a failed state, the reality is that is has been rather too successful and NI is unable to keep up, and it would truly a tragedy if this gap kept partition going.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on January 25, 2021, 02:55:00 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
The problem those seeking a UI has, is not solely persuading unionists or the undecided. Many nationalists, and I would be one, need to be convinced that our standard of living will not be impaired. I cannot see wages increasing adequately in a UI to cover the increase in living costs. Furthermore having reached a certain age I am very conscious that I will be relying on the health service more and more. When I was younger I would have risked these things. Much as I want to see a UI, I have not seen detail on these issues other than claim and counter claim.

It'll be like Brexit and elections etc - full of spin and fake news.

Just look at Coronavirus for example.  The whole debate, as time has went on, has been crazy.

Who are you going to believe?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 25, 2021, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 02:41:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

Yet why have they a two tier health service with the public health system seeing 600-700 people lying on hospital trolleys every year, working class people being priced out healthcare?

Why have you such issues with homelessness and where being able to afford a home is a pipedream for most of the generation in their 20s?

You try and spin it anyway you want, the free state is a failed statelet and time and time again, the vested interests are looked after at the cost of the people.

Look at the ever widening welath inequality in the 26 that grows bigger and bigger every year. Look at how the FS government consistently pilfer off state resources and services to the private sector so their billionaire pals can gouge the working man for a few quid more to vital services and resources. They can vote to not pay their student nurses but are happy to overpay a billionaire €10m and refuse to look for it back.

The Free State is rotten and mired in corruption.


you are sounding more and more like Jim Alister with every passing comment son.

200,000 on NHS waiting lists in NI

10,000 Families Homeless in NI

And???? Who is saying the O6 is a success?

Where have I defended the O6? I've repeatedly said both states are failed states. What part of that statement I've repeated multiple times are you failing to grasp?

The Republic is not a failed state by any metric you wish to employ,bitterness blinds you to that

Your probably one of those work shy handout out addicted Shinner fucks who's pining for a 32 socialist state which means the color of your handout money will change and life will continue on,except this time round you'll be leeching off the Irish state

I've news for you pal

There won't ever be a socialist state here

All you boys will be getting off yer holes getting jobs and paying tax if there's ever a UI
I have to say that while I don't think the Republic is a failure by any stretch of the imagination, those leading it for the past decade or two have failed the people. Your belligerence is a warm reminder of how scared the FFG crowd are of SF.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 03:03:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:23:06 PM
SF are the largest party on this presently, a UI will see them have their chance at power and the people will then judge them on it.

SF are are likely to get into power before a UI as after it. They have 27% of the vote in the 6 counties and around that in polls in the 26 counties. A UI will not give them power.
The thing that nationalists have to fear is that SF will get into power before a UI and kibosh the whole thing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 25, 2021, 03:04:36 PM
Question. Can you be considered a Nationalist or Republican if you need to be convinced of a United Ireland?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: lfdown2 on January 25, 2021, 03:11:45 PM
Interesting article from the Newsletter;

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/philip-smith-new-research-shows-neithers-problem-union-unionists-3111473 (https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/philip-smith-new-research-shows-neithers-problem-union-unionists-3111473)

In reality there is a growing cohort who would prefer an independent northern Ireland, as that is not in play it will be a case of the less worse option.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 03:12:28 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 02:41:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

Yet why have they a two tier health service with the public health system seeing 600-700 people lying on hospital trolleys every year, working class people being priced out healthcare?

Why have you such issues with homelessness and where being able to afford a home is a pipedream for most of the generation in their 20s?

You try and spin it anyway you want, the free state is a failed statelet and time and time again, the vested interests are looked after at the cost of the people.

Look at the ever widening welath inequality in the 26 that grows bigger and bigger every year. Look at how the FS government consistently pilfer off state resources and services to the private sector so their billionaire pals can gouge the working man for a few quid more to vital services and resources. They can vote to not pay their student nurses but are happy to overpay a billionaire €10m and refuse to look for it back.

The Free State is rotten and mired in corruption.


you are sounding more and more like Jim Alister with every passing comment son.

200,000 on NHS waiting lists in NI

10,000 Families Homeless in NI

And???? Who is saying the O6 is a success?

Where have I defended the O6? I've repeatedly said both states are failed states. What part of that statement I've repeated multiple times are you failing to grasp?

The Republic is not a failed state by any metric you wish to employ,bitterness blinds you to that

Your probably one of those work shy handout out addicted Shinner fucks who's pining for a 32 socialist state which means the color of your handout money will change and life will continue on,except this time round you'll be leeching off the Irish state

I've news for you pal

There won't ever be a socialist state here

All you boys will be getting off yer holes getting jobs and paying tax if there's ever a UI

That's just nonsense.

Homelessness, a basket case public health service, an unaffordable private health sector, an out of control residential rental market being created by vulture funds, state resources and services consistently being hawked off to the private sector, a generation coming forward hawked with seismic national debt after the state bailed out billionaire bondholders and made their citizens pay for it, a generation where owning your own house will now be a pipe dream.

And you absurdly claim, you are not a failed state. The Free State is merely a means to service domestic and non-domestic billionaires, by any metric it is rotten.

I don't think people have an issue with paying tax. I think the fundamental concerns with the free state is that the money taxpayers contribute goes into an offertory box for Larry Goodman and Denis O'Brien.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 03:16:57 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 03:03:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:23:06 PM
SF are the largest party on this presently, a UI will see them have their chance at power and the people will then judge them on it.

SF are are likely to get into power before a UI as after it. They have 27% of the vote in the 6 counties and around that in polls in the 26 counties. A UI will not give them power.
The thing that nationalists have to fear is that SF will get into power before a UI and kibosh the whole thing.

There is nothing to kibosh as long as FFG are there. They do not want this vote, they are very threatened on their clutch of power being taken away.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
The problem those seeking a UI has, is not solely persuading unionists or the undecided. Many nationalists, and I would be one, need to be convinced that our standard of living will not be impaired. I cannot see wages increasing adequately in a UI to cover the increase in living costs. Furthermore having reached a certain age I am very conscious that I will be relying on the health service more and more. When I was younger I would have risked these things. Much as I want to see a UI, I have not seen detail on these issues other than claim and counter claim.

I don't think you can necessarily label yourself a nationalist then but it is in this middle ground sector like yourself on which a poll will be won and lost. It is up to the nationalist argument to convince such middle ground voters.

Any such transition or change in living standards would not simply take place overnight, that is simply not how economics work. Market forces would result in a gradual harmonisation between the two states whereby cost of living in the north would likely rise as property prices converged to an equilibrium and wages would correspondingly rise as FDI was introduced into the north to avail of an initial lower cost base. The bloated civil service in NI would need to reform which would be no harm anyway. The pro unity side would undoubtedly need to consider ways of plugging the finance gap whilst the new structures are given time to bed in. That is where they should be lobbying EU/US for some element of phased financial support. The German model whilst different does present some form of template. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 25, 2021, 03:22:43 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
The problem those seeking a UI has, is not solely persuading unionists or the undecided. Many nationalists, and I would be one, need to be convinced that our standard of living will not be impaired. I cannot see wages increasing adequately in a UI to cover the increase in living costs. Furthermore having reached a certain age I am very conscious that I will be relying on the health service more and more. When I was younger I would have risked these things. Much as I want to see a UI, I have not seen detail on these issues other than claim and counter claim.

I don't think you can necessarily label yourself a nationalist then but it is in this middle ground sector like yourself on which a poll will be won and lost. It is up to the nationalist argument to convince such middle ground voters.

Any such transition or change in living standards would not simply take place overnight, that is simply not how economics work. Market forces would result in a gradual harmonisation between the two states whereby cost of living in the north would likely rise as property prices converged to an equilibrium and wages would correspondingly rise as FDI was introduced into the north to avail of an initial lower cost base. The bloated civil service in NI would need to reform which would be no harm anyway. The pro unity side would undoubtedly need to consider ways of plugging the finance gap whilst the new structures are given time to bed in. That is where they should be lobbying EU/US for some element of phased financial support. The German model whilst different does present some form of template.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Don't forget Britain will have financial obligations as well.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on January 25, 2021, 03:27:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:52 AM

So you disagree you have homeless crisis?


I never disagreed. One homeless person is one too many. But in a border poll, I'd spell out that UK's rate is over twice that of Ireland. That's how this vote will work, and it's senseless bashing Ireland for areas where UK is worse.

Quote

You reject the assertion that you have a two tier health system, where people are priced out of healthcare because of how much they earn and afford to pay?

We spend more on health per head of population than UK. The waste in the system needs to be fixed. The North had a distinct advantage over South here, but both are a mess right now. This will still be one of UK's main selling points.

Quote
You reject the corruption labels? Haughey, Bertie, Lowry, Lawlor, Michael Martin, Burke, Flynn etc etc? The tribunals, the cosy relationships with bakers, billionaires and property developers?

I never said we did not have a bunch of gangsters, most of which were in Fianna Fail. But a lot of politicians have done good things that have led to huge progress. Joining the EEC under a FG/Labour coalition was one, at a time when both Sinn Fein and DUP campaigned against joining EEC. Could you imagine how backward we'd be if they had any clout back then? I gave Haughey's goverment credit for having the foresight to create our financial services centre back in 1980s, which put us in a good position with Brexit to take jobs from London. I gave the FG/Lab/Democratic Left government for proposing the new corporate tax rate, eventually made law by Charlie McCreevey - that helped bring some of the top tech and pharma brands into Ireland.

Quote

This is the sort of deluded, entitled attitude that you free staters have. We aren't voting for the north to go down and join the southern establishment. We are voting for a new Ireland, the end of partition, the end of two rotten states.


The end result will hopefully that the top rotten state starts to have similar economic output to the bottom rotten state.

Quote
Unionist bigotry and southern greed and corruption will hopefully become a thing of the past. That bit seems to worry the likes of you, FF, FG, RTE, Denis O'Brien, Larry Goodman etc.

Don't disagree. But there's plenty of Catholic bigots North & South too. There was  time a Catholic girl would be tarred and feathered for dating the wrong type. Hopefully male, Catholic chauvinism that liked to control women and their bodies will be a thing of the past too.

Quote
In your post you are praising Haughey, a gangster who told people to tighten their belts as we was having million pound personal loans written off by his friends in high places. That just sums up the free state, an elitist ruling class who have managed to make society a two tier states, the have and have nots. You have foisted huge national debt on the generations to come, your youth cannot even afford to buy a home anymore, homelessness levels are through the roof, the health service is a disgrace and unless you can afford private healthcare you might as well forget about it.

In a border poll I would look at national dept per GDP and Ireland's is a lot lower than UK. Ireland's stands at 59% while UK is at 85%. I'm sure Covid borrowing will skew those numbers when 2020 is looked at. But I'd still imagine Ireland to be in a better position than UK.

Quote
Clearly you are the type of conscienceless chap who votes FFG from the shire of Roscommon.

Love our local Sinn Fein councillor, actually. Has done many a favour ;)


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 03:30:47 PM
Assuming the 1st poll takes place around 2028 will the 6 Cos still be a basket case economy?
Do people really expect the 2.5m+ people who will be working in the 26 to pick up a tab of maybe €4k extra tax per annum to keep the basket cases in the style they've become accustomed to?
The large portion of that workforce under 35 won't remember the pre GFA days and many more of them will be foreigners or children of foreigners and won't give 2 hoots about re unifying Ireland.
Firstly pro UI people will have to convince the ever growing non aligned/other people in the 6.
Can't see a large cohort of SFers doing that with their antics.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 03:43:01 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
The problem those seeking a UI has, is not solely persuading unionists or the undecided. Many nationalists, and I would be one, need to be convinced that our standard of living will not be impaired. I cannot see wages increasing adequately in a UI to cover the increase in living costs. Furthermore having reached a certain age I am very conscious that I will be relying on the health service more and more. When I was younger I would have risked these things. Much as I want to see a UI, I have not seen detail on these issues other than claim and counter claim.

I don't think you can necessarily label yourself a nationalist then but it is in this middle ground sector like yourself on which a poll will be won and lost. It is up to the nationalist argument to convince such middle ground voters.

Any such transition or change in living standards would not simply take place overnight, that is simply not how economics work. Market forces would result in a gradual harmonisation between the two states whereby cost of living in the north would likely rise as property prices converged to an equilibrium and wages would correspondingly rise as FDI was introduced into the north to avail of an initial lower cost base. The bloated civil service in NI would need to reform which would be no harm anyway. The pro unity side would undoubtedly need to consider ways of plugging the finance gap whilst the new structures are given time to bed in. That is where they should be lobbying EU/US for some element of phased financial support. The German model whilst different does present some form of template.
Sorry, but you don't get to decide what I call myself. Read what I am saying, I need to know what it will look like and that is the challenge.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 03:53:20 PM
Angelo's fake news does illustrate a general problem though, SF like to pick up votes in the south by claiming that everything is crap and this has meant that they have not drawn attention to the ways in which they are much better than in the 6 counties.
For instance, even "nationalists" will claim that health is better in the 6 counties when the most that can be said about it is that you get what you pay for.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 25, 2021, 03:55:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 03:43:01 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
The problem those seeking a UI has, is not solely persuading unionists or the undecided. Many nationalists, and I would be one, need to be convinced that our standard of living will not be impaired. I cannot see wages increasing adequately in a UI to cover the increase in living costs. Furthermore having reached a certain age I am very conscious that I will be relying on the health service more and more. When I was younger I would have risked these things. Much as I want to see a UI, I have not seen detail on these issues other than claim and counter claim.

I don't think you can necessarily label yourself a nationalist then but it is in this middle ground sector like yourself on which a poll will be won and lost. It is up to the nationalist argument to convince such middle ground voters.

Any such transition or change in living standards would not simply take place overnight, that is simply not how economics work. Market forces would result in a gradual harmonisation between the two states whereby cost of living in the north would likely rise as property prices converged to an equilibrium and wages would correspondingly rise as FDI was introduced into the north to avail of an initial lower cost base. The bloated civil service in NI would need to reform which would be no harm anyway. The pro unity side would undoubtedly need to consider ways of plugging the finance gap whilst the new structures are given time to bed in. That is where they should be lobbying EU/US for some element of phased financial support. The German model whilst different does present some form of template.
Sorry, but you don't get to decide what I call myself. Read what I am saying, I need to know what it will look like and that is the challenge.

Surely the definition of "A Nationalist" in this context can decide though?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 25, 2021, 03:57:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 03:53:20 PM
Angelo's fake news does illustrate a general problem though, SF like to pick up votes in the south by claiming that everything is crap and this has meant that they have not drawn attention to the ways in which they are much better than in the 6 counties.
For instance, even "nationalists" will claim that health is better in the 6 counties when the most that can be said about it is that you get what you pay for.

Health is pretty dire in the North. Even if it is free you'll be dead by the time you receive the treatment.
Health in the ROI could be better and a NHS type service, free at the point of delivery should surely be a goal in a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 03:58:37 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 03:30:47 PM
Assuming the 1st poll takes place around 2028 will the 6 Cos still be a basket case economy? Yes.
Do people really expect the 2.5m+ people who will be working in the 26 to pick up a tab of maybe €4k extra tax per annum to keep the basket cases in the style they've become accustomed to? By the time the budget deficits from Covid are totted up, they will significantly dwarf any potential cost of reunification.
The large portion of that workforce under 35 won't remember the pre GFA days and many more of them will be foreigners or children of foreigners and won't give 2 hoots about re unifying Ireland. Then you completely misunderstand demographics, polling has consistently indicated that support for a UI is higher in lower age groups.
Firstly pro UI people will have to convince the ever growing non aligned/other people in the 6. That is the big challenge.
Can't see a large cohort of SFers doing that with their antics. Have you ever heard of the DUP
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on January 25, 2021, 04:00:50 PM
The NHS is in the shit. It was not that long ago before covid that we had constant reminders that we had hundreds of thousands of people on huge waiting list for operations - for a country with a pop less than 2 million thats ridiculous. The thought that the NHS holds the balance in this debate is bonkers. I think people are thinking back to the service form 40 yrs ago and not the under funded overworked reality of it today
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 04:04:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 03:43:01 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 25, 2021, 02:35:18 PM
The problem those seeking a UI has, is not solely persuading unionists or the undecided. Many nationalists, and I would be one, need to be convinced that our standard of living will not be impaired. I cannot see wages increasing adequately in a UI to cover the increase in living costs. Furthermore having reached a certain age I am very conscious that I will be relying on the health service more and more. When I was younger I would have risked these things. Much as I want to see a UI, I have not seen detail on these issues other than claim and counter claim.

I don't think you can necessarily label yourself a nationalist then but it is in this middle ground sector like yourself on which a poll will be won and lost. It is up to the nationalist argument to convince such middle ground voters.

Any such transition or change in living standards would not simply take place overnight, that is simply not how economics work. Market forces would result in a gradual harmonisation between the two states whereby cost of living in the north would likely rise as property prices converged to an equilibrium and wages would correspondingly rise as FDI was introduced into the north to avail of an initial lower cost base. The bloated civil service in NI would need to reform which would be no harm anyway. The pro unity side would undoubtedly need to consider ways of plugging the finance gap whilst the new structures are given time to bed in. That is where they should be lobbying EU/US for some element of phased financial support. The German model whilst different does present some form of template.
Sorry, but you don't get to decide what I call myself. Read what I am saying, I need to know what it will look like and that is the challenge.

A conditional nationalist then. I'm not having a go at you, yours is a very valid opinion and the challenge will be in setting out the framework to sell the argument to the undecideds.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 04:25:24 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on January 25, 2021, 03:58:37 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 25, 2021, 03:30:47 PM
Assuming the 1st poll takes place around 2028 will the 6 Cos still be a basket case economy? Yes.
Do people really expect the 2.5m+ people who will be working in the 26 to pick up a tab of maybe €4k extra tax per annum to keep the basket cases in the style they've become accustomed to? By the time the budget deficits from Covid are totted up, they will significantly dwarf any potential cost of reunification.
The large portion of that workforce under 35 won't remember the pre GFA days and many more of them will be foreigners or children of foreigners and won't give 2 hoots about re unifying Ireland. Then you completely misunderstand demographics, polling has consistently indicated that support for a UI is higher in lower age groups.
I'M TALKING ABOUT 26 COS. TAXPAYERS, YOUNG SOPHISTICATED, INTERNATIONALIST TYPES WHO WON'T WANT THEIR LIFESTYLES CURBED BY HAVING TO PAY HIGHER TAXES
Firstly pro UI people will have to convince the ever growing non aligned/other people in the 6. That is the big challenge.
Can't see a large cohort of SFers doing that with their antics. Have you ever heard of the DUP :D DUPUDA HAVE DONE MORE FOR A UI THAN MOST NATIONALISTS
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 04:34:38 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 03:53:20 PM
Angelo's fake news does illustrate a general problem though, SF like to pick up votes in the south by claiming that everything is crap and this has meant that they have not drawn attention to the ways in which they are much better than in the 6 counties.
For instance, even "nationalists" will claim that health is better in the 6 counties when the most that can be said about it is that you get what you pay for.

Fake news?Don't deal in that but you seem to.

I have never said anything is alright in the O6. I have said both sides of the border are failed states, you won't hear me defending the O6.

The bottom line is however, Stormont has little power, everything is ran in Westiminister, they have very little discretion in how much they can spend nevermind having to share power with unionist flat earthers. It doesn't matter who forms the assembly, nothing will ever change under the current government structure in the north.

Nobody denies the O6 is a basket case but pretending the south is some sort of Mecca in comparison is pure propaganda and the political parties down there actually have the political autonomy to bring forward proper changes and progressive policies to fix that but decide to do whatever the billionaires want. And that is what your fake news tries to distort.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 04:55:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 04:34:38 PM
Nobody denies the O6 is a basket case but pretending the south is some sort of Mecca in comparison is pure propaganda and the political parties down there actually have the political autonomy to bring forward proper changes and progressive policies to fix that but decide to do whatever the billionaires want. And that is what your fake news tries to distort.

The south is a normal kind of place, it has its issues like everywhere else and normality is something of a Mecca in comparison.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 03:12:28 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 02:41:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

Yet why have they a two tier health service with the public health system seeing 600-700 people lying on hospital trolleys every year, working class people being priced out healthcare?

Why have you such issues with homelessness and where being able to afford a home is a pipedream for most of the generation in their 20s?

You try and spin it anyway you want, the free state is a failed statelet and time and time again, the vested interests are looked after at the cost of the people.

Look at the ever widening welath inequality in the 26 that grows bigger and bigger every year. Look at how the FS government consistently pilfer off state resources and services to the private sector so their billionaire pals can gouge the working man for a few quid more to vital services and resources. They can vote to not pay their student nurses but are happy to overpay a billionaire €10m and refuse to look for it back.

The Free State is rotten and mired in corruption.


you are sounding more and more like Jim Alister with every passing comment son.

200,000 on NHS waiting lists in NI

10,000 Families Homeless in NI

And???? Who is saying the O6 is a success?

Where have I defended the O6? I've repeatedly said both states are failed states. What part of that statement I've repeated multiple times are you failing to grasp?

The Republic is not a failed state by any metric you wish to employ,bitterness blinds you to that

Your probably one of those work shy handout out addicted Shinner fucks who's pining for a 32 socialist state which means the color of your handout money will change and life will continue on,except this time round you'll be leeching off the Irish state

I've news for you pal

There won't ever be a socialist state here

All you boys will be getting off yer holes getting jobs and paying tax if there's ever a UI

That's just nonsense.

Homelessness, a basket case public health service, an unaffordable private health sector, an out of control residential rental market being created by vulture funds, state resources and services consistently being hawked off to the private sector, a generation coming forward hawked with seismic national debt after the state bailed out billionaire bondholders and made their citizens pay for it, a generation where owning your own house will now be a pipe dream.

And you absurdly claim, you are not a failed state. The Free State is merely a means to service domestic and non-domestic billionaires, by any metric it is rotten.

I don't think people have an issue with paying tax. I think the fundamental concerns with the free state is that the money taxpayers contribute goes into an offertory box for Larry Goodman and Denis O'Brien.

God you really do hate the Republic possibly even more than the Alisters and Buntings of this world

You do realize you have more in common with them in their irrational hatred of the south than any of us that might actually be wanting to work towards  a United Ireland

You are the best ad for preserving the status quo that there is

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 05:59:39 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 03:12:28 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 02:41:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 25, 2021, 12:54:14 PM
For those who seem to believe that the Republic is a failed state and is any way comparable to what they have in NI

A few simple facts

NI currently has a population 36% of the Republics

1.1920 2 counties Down and Antrim had 80% of the total economic output of the Island, today the total NI economic output is 8% of this islands output.

If NI was in any fit state economically, it would be contributing a third or more.

2.The Size of the Republics economy is €400bn odd, the size of NI's is £40bn odd

NI's economy should be treble what it is, £120bn odd

3.Exports

ROI total exports €160bn odd,2020 up 8% on 2019

NI total exports £7bn odd

the reality is that the increase in the Republic exports between 2019 and 2020 is greater than NI total exports tells its own story.

4.Cross Border Exports by value

34% NI exports to the Republic

1% ROI exports to NI


I could go on and on with examples as regards the disparity in wages, educational attainment, quality of life, life expectancy, even social welfare benefits which seems to a preoccupation of some from NI and the likes of gay rights and abortion rights but I wont.

I'm sure the sainted northern NHS will be thrown at me as an example of where NI is better the Republic, but when you look at the thousands on waiting lists up there, it kinda dilutes that claim too.

The reality is that the Republic is a free open and tolerant European country, hardly the failed state that some Northerners on here make it out to be, possibly to make themselves feel better.

Yet why have they a two tier health service with the public health system seeing 600-700 people lying on hospital trolleys every year, working class people being priced out healthcare?

Why have you such issues with homelessness and where being able to afford a home is a pipedream for most of the generation in their 20s?

You try and spin it anyway you want, the free state is a failed statelet and time and time again, the vested interests are looked after at the cost of the people.

Look at the ever widening welath inequality in the 26 that grows bigger and bigger every year. Look at how the FS government consistently pilfer off state resources and services to the private sector so their billionaire pals can gouge the working man for a few quid more to vital services and resources. They can vote to not pay their student nurses but are happy to overpay a billionaire €10m and refuse to look for it back.

The Free State is rotten and mired in corruption.


you are sounding more and more like Jim Alister with every passing comment son.

200,000 on NHS waiting lists in NI

10,000 Families Homeless in NI

And???? Who is saying the O6 is a success?

Where have I defended the O6? I've repeatedly said both states are failed states. What part of that statement I've repeated multiple times are you failing to grasp?

The Republic is not a failed state by any metric you wish to employ,bitterness blinds you to that

Your probably one of those work shy handout out addicted Shinner fucks who's pining for a 32 socialist state which means the color of your handout money will change and life will continue on,except this time round you'll be leeching off the Irish state

I've news for you pal

There won't ever be a socialist state here

All you boys will be getting off yer holes getting jobs and paying tax if there's ever a UI

That's just nonsense.

Homelessness, a basket case public health service, an unaffordable private health sector, an out of control residential rental market being created by vulture funds, state resources and services consistently being hawked off to the private sector, a generation coming forward hawked with seismic national debt after the state bailed out billionaire bondholders and made their citizens pay for it, a generation where owning your own house will now be a pipe dream.

And you absurdly claim, you are not a failed state. The Free State is merely a means to service domestic and non-domestic billionaires, by any metric it is rotten.

I don't think people have an issue with paying tax. I think the fundamental concerns with the free state is that the money taxpayers contribute goes into an offertory box for Larry Goodman and Denis O'Brien.

God you really do hate the Republic possibly even more than the Alisters and Buntings of this world

You do realize you have more in common with them in their irrational hatred of the south than any of us that might actually be wanting to work towards  a United Ireland

You are the best ad for preserving the status quo that there is

I'm just presenting facts. Two rotten states but you're try to say one is some sort of utopia and denying all the huge societal issues in it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 04:55:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 04:34:38 PM
Nobody denies the O6 is a basket case but pretending the south is some sort of Mecca in comparison is pure propaganda and the political parties down there actually have the political autonomy to bring forward proper changes and progressive policies to fix that but decide to do whatever the billionaires want. And that is what your fake news tries to distort.

The south is a normal kind of place, it has its issues like everywhere else and normality is something of a Mecca in comparison.

So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on January 25, 2021, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.

+1.
Coverup of sexual abuse is certainly not exclusive to Ireland either.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GAABoardMod5 on January 25, 2021, 09:49:00 PM
Clonadman stepped over the line this morning (several pages back) and warranted me issuing a 2 day ban. 

Do not resort to personal insults.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.

Sounds like justification of these things. Seems to me the only thing people promoting the Free State as a great country is that it's a tax haven for multinational companies.

They may not be unique to the free state but it gives you an idea how things work.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on January 25, 2021, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.
What sort of society would you like to live in, Angelo?

Sounds like justification of these things. Seems to me the only thing people promoting the Free State as a great country is that it's a tax haven for multinational companies.

They may not be unique to the free state but it gives you an idea how things work.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on January 25, 2021, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.

Sounds like justification of these things. Seems to me the only thing people promoting the Free State as a great country is that it's a tax haven for multinational companies.

They may not be unique to the free state but it gives you an idea how things work.
What sort of society would you like to live in, Angelo?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 26, 2021, 08:58:19 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 25, 2021, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.

+1.
Coverup of sexual abuse is certainly not exclusive to Ireland either.

Correct, it was directed and controlled from the Vatican.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: restorepride on January 25, 2021, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.

Sounds like justification of these things. Seems to me the only thing people promoting the Free State as a great country is that it's a tax haven for multinational companies.

They may not be unique to the free state but it gives you an idea how things work.
What sort of society would you like to live in, Angelo?

One where the needs of people are put ahead of vested interests, one where politicians are held to account for their decisions and abuses of power, one where governments strive to introduce fairer taxation on the high earners and corporations and one where the state provides the best quality of public services and facilities. In any form of equitable society the needs of citizens must come first and that' what we should aspire to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 26, 2021, 10:30:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:26 PM
Sounds like justification of these things. Seems to me the only thing people promoting the Free State as a great country is that it's a tax haven for multinational companies.

They may not be unique to the free state but it gives you an idea how things work.

Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 10:12:25 AM

One where the needs of people are put ahead of vested interests, one where politicians are held to account for their decisions and abuses of power, one where governments strive to introduce fairer taxation on the high earners and corporations and one where the state provides the best quality of public services and facilities. In any form of equitable society the needs of citizens must come first and that' what we should aspire to.

The Republic has the second most progressive tax system in the OECD, after Israel.

The tax burden on modest earners is one of the reasons why the country is failing. Ten years of the USC has robbed working families of the ability to save for a rainy day, and for many with mortgages, long term illness or unemployment means a slide into poverty and eventual homelessness.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 26, 2021, 10:33:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: restorepride on January 25, 2021, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.

Sounds like justification of these things. Seems to me the only thing people promoting the Free State as a great country is that it's a tax haven for multinational companies.

They may not be unique to the free state but it gives you an idea how things work.
What sort of society would you like to live in, Angelo?

One where the needs of people are put ahead of vested interests, one where politicians are held to account for their decisions and abuses of power, one where governments strive to introduce fairer taxation on the high earners and corporations and one where the state provides the best quality of public services and facilities. In any form of equitable society the needs of citizens must come first and that' what we should aspire to.

A 32 county socialist republic where we would be all bare arsed and back driving banana republic bangers with dodgy red number plates be more up you street Angelo
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 11:21:01 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 26, 2021, 10:33:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: restorepride on January 25, 2021, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.

Sounds like justification of these things. Seems to me the only thing people promoting the Free State as a great country is that it's a tax haven for multinational companies.

They may not be unique to the free state but it gives you an idea how things work.
What sort of society would you like to live in, Angelo?

One where the needs of people are put ahead of vested interests, one where politicians are held to account for their decisions and abuses of power, one where governments strive to introduce fairer taxation on the high earners and corporations and one where the state provides the best quality of public services and facilities. In any form of equitable society the needs of citizens must come first and that' what we should aspire to.

A 32 county socialist republic where we would be all bare arsed and back driving banana republic bangers with dodgy red number plates be more up you street Angelo

A small price to pay if it provides quality and indiscriminate healthcare and every family are able to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

Seems to me you care more about materiality and status than treating people fairly. We should be putting the focus on ordinary citizens not high wealth individuals and multinational corporations.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 11:45:00 AM
There won't be a "Socialist" Republic neither 26 nor 32 County versions thankfully.

About 2 or 3% of voters vote loony left anywhere in Ireland.

Hopefully we will have a more Social democratic and less neo liberal society after the pandemic is over.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 11:46:21 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 11:45:00 AM
There won't be a "Socialist" Republic neither 26 nor 32 County versions thankfully.

About 2 or 3% of voters vote loony left anywhere in Ireland.

Hopefully we will have a more Social democratic and less neo liberal society after the pandemic is over.

Are you pretending not to be neo-liberal now?

;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on January 26, 2021, 12:01:45 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

Have you seen the financial policies (if you can call them that) SF have proposed in recent years in the ROI? What they could do to the ROI economy is a scary thought 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:02:47 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

They despise the working class and the poor and are happy enough to derail the betterment of society and provision of better public services so that they have an inferior class to look down upon.

That's really it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 26, 2021, 12:01:45 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

Have you seen the financial policies (if you can call them that) SF have proposed in recent years in the ROI? What they could do to the ROI economy is a scary thought

This is the type of lunacy you get from neo-liberals who vote for parties who destroyed the Irish economy little over a decade ago and enforced a huge national debt and austerity on its people, who have created a situation where homelessness has risen, the health service is a disgrace and very few of the young generation have realistic aspirations of owning their own home.

Look at this report today.

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0126/1192005-property-study-apartments/

But of course you are worried about the hypothetical economic policies of SF rather than the parties with a track record of economic illiteracy and incompetence.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 26, 2021, 12:14:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 26, 2021, 12:01:45 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

Have you seen the financial policies (if you can call them that) SF have proposed in recent years in the ROI? What they could do to the ROI economy is a scary thought

This is the type of lunacy you get from neo-liberals who vote for parties who destroyed the Irish economy little over a decade ago and enforced a huge national debt and austerity on its people, who have created a situation where homelessness has risen, the health service is a disgrace and very few of the young generation have realistic aspirations of owning their own home.

Look at this report today.

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0126/1192005-property-study-apartments/

But of course you are worried about the hypothetical economic policies of SF rather than the parties with a track record of economic illiteracy and incompetence.

Sinn Fein supported the bank guarantee. They also supported the huge rises in public spending that bankrupted the public finances in 2008, and the clampdown on house building in 2009 that caused the housing crisis.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 12:14:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 26, 2021, 12:01:45 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

Have you seen the financial policies (if you can call them that) SF have proposed in recent years in the ROI? What they could do to the ROI economy is a scary thought

This is the type of lunacy you get from neo-liberals who vote for parties who destroyed the Irish economy little over a decade ago and enforced a huge national debt and austerity on its people, who have created a situation where homelessness has risen, the health service is a disgrace and very few of the young generation have realistic aspirations of owning their own home.

Look at this report today.

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2021/0126/1192005-property-study-apartments/

But of course you are worried about the hypothetical economic policies of SF rather than the parties with a track record of economic illiteracy and incompetence.

Sinn Fein supported the bank guarantee. They also supported the huge rises in public spending that bankrupted the public finances in 2008, and the clampdown on house building that caused the housing crisis.

They subsequently rejected the bank guarantee when more information came out about it.

Public spending didn't bankrupt the country. Financial regulation of the banks bankrupted the country.

It was the financial policies of FF/FG that bankrupted the country, ran the public health sector down, hawked off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and created a homelessness crisis by allowing vulture funds and private wealthy investors to come in and buy up residential property by the droves and then they failed to and continue to fail to regulate the rental market.

Blaming SF for the financial crisis when they never had power is some insane sort of windmilling effort to deflect away from those who had power and unequivocally responsible.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 26, 2021, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

Because they would like to continue working?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:24:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 26, 2021, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

Because they would like to continue working?

On zero hour contracts where they can never afford to own a home? There's a reason SF are surging down south, you're too vested in an agenda to see how people's quality of life and prospects, particularly people under the age of 50 have been savaged by FFG policies.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 12:30:57 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 26, 2021, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

Because they would like to continue working?
All the ones working for multi nationals certainly plus their dependents plus all those who work for companies supplying multi nationals etc.
Not much point voting Labour or SDP any more, unless they join forces and get a youthful vigorous leadership.
Even then they will only be to make up numbers in a Coalition.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on January 26, 2021, 12:35:05 PM
FF were in power in the mid noughties when the economy crashed but none of the parties (including SF) were saying stop and in some cases were criticising the government for not spending more. SF want to use a so called wealth tax and the apple court case money to generate the funds for their other policies. Crazy stuff.

Unfortunately SF will likely be in power after the next election for the simple reason they aren't FF/FG which is a concern for anyone working for a mutli- national company in this country
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:35:35 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 12:30:57 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 26, 2021, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 11:53:30 AM
I've read the last page or two and I'm just trying to get into the mindset of working people who would prefer to continue under a FF/FG government.

Because they would like to continue working?
All the ones working for multi nationals certainly plus their dependents plus all those who work for companies supplying multi nationals etc.
Not much point voting Labour or SDP any more, unless they join forces and get a youthful vigorous leadership.
Even then they will only be to make up numbers in a Coalition.

Maybe they should stop focusing on training people to work for multinationals and refocus on training sufficient numbers to work in healthcare?

How much in direct taxation to the multinationals contribute every year? Where does that money go? To the bank accounts of private landlords? To the bank accounts of building firms who don't pay tax in the free state to build the most expensive children's hospital in the world?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:39:28 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 26, 2021, 12:35:05 PM
FF were in power in the mid noughties when the economy crashed but none of the parties (including SF) were saying stop and in some cases were criticising the government for not spending more. SF want to use a so called wealth tax and the apple court case money to generate the funds for their other policies. Crazy stuff.

Unfortunately SF will likely be in power after the next election for the simple reason they aren't FF/FG which is a concern for anyone working for a mutli- national company in this country

You're rabbitting on about SF not stopping the government from destroying the economy? SF were a fringe party who were in opposition and no say in government decisions. It's an utterly absurd argument. Do the government not deserve accountability here?

FFG are a concern for anyone under 35 or couples or families earning under 80k a year in the state and cannot get a mortgage or afford private healthcare which represents a sizable amount of the electorate. That is exactly why SF are surging down south because FF/FG policies have brough the state to its knees.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 26, 2021, 12:50:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 12:14:51 PM

Sinn Fein supported the bank guarantee. They also supported the huge rises in public spending that bankrupted the public finances in 2008, and the clampdown on house building that caused the housing crisis.

They subsequently rejected the bank guarantee when more information came out about it.

Public spending didn't bankrupt the country. Financial regulation of the banks bankrupted the country.

It was the financial policies of FF/FG that bankrupted the country, ran the public health sector down, hawked off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and created a homelessness crisis by allowing vulture funds and private wealthy investors to come in and buy up residential property by the droves and then they failed to and continue to fail to regulate the rental market.

Blaming SF for the financial crisis when they never had power is some insane sort of windmilling effort to deflect away from those who had power and unequivocally responsible.

The damage was done with the bank guarantee by the time Sinn Féin copped on to their error. That admission shattered the myth that they'd be any better with the public purse than FF or FG have been.

And of course the public spending splurge of the previous 5-7 years did indeed bankrupt the country. The financial regulation disaster merely added another chunk onto the national debt that was already spiralling out of control.

A lot of the money that was blown in those 5-7 years went on the health service, and SF at the time kept crying that they weren't blowing half enough on it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:53:08 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 12:50:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 12:14:51 PM

Sinn Fein supported the bank guarantee. They also supported the huge rises in public spending that bankrupted the public finances in 2008, and the clampdown on house building that caused the housing crisis.

They subsequently rejected the bank guarantee when more information came out about it.

Public spending didn't bankrupt the country. Financial regulation of the banks bankrupted the country.

It was the financial policies of FF/FG that bankrupted the country, ran the public health sector down, hawked off state resources and services to the private sector for a song and created a homelessness crisis by allowing vulture funds and private wealthy investors to come in and buy up residential property by the droves and then they failed to and continue to fail to regulate the rental market.

Blaming SF for the financial crisis when they never had power is some insane sort of windmilling effort to deflect away from those who had power and unequivocally responsible.

The damage was done with the bank guarantee by the time Sinn Féin copped on to their error. That admission shattered the myth that they'd be any better with the public purse than FF or FG have been.

And of course the public spending splurge of the previous 5-7 years did indeed bankrupt the country. The financial regulation disaster merely added another chunk onto the national debt that was already spiralling out of control.

A lot of the money that was blown in those 5-7 years went on the health service, and SF at the time kept crying that they weren't blowing half enough on it.

Once again, public spending wasn't the issue. Lack of regulation on the banking sector was. You're talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking in fact.

FFG have a track record proven in destroying the economy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 26, 2021, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:53:08 PM

Once again, public spending wasn't the issue. Lack of regulation on the banking sector was. You're talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking in fact.

FFG have a track record proven in destroying the economy.

Our current account deficit was 7% of GNP in 2008, before a cent was paid off the banking sector debt. This was all to do with public spending.

The Shinners had no solutions then. They still have no solutions.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:53:08 PM

Once again, public spending wasn't the issue. Lack of regulation on the banking sector was. You're talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking in fact.

FFG have a track record proven in destroying the economy.

Our current account deficit was 7% of GNP in 2008, before a cent was paid off the banking sector debt. This was all to do with public spending.

The Shinners had no solutions then. They still have no solutions.

Absolute nonsense.

Public spending again was not the issue, the collapse of the baking sector which had to be bailed out to the tune of €64bn was the problem, lumped on the tax payer for decades to come.

Now you could certainly raise issues on how FFG spend the taxpayers money. You have FFG currently breaking records on the world's most expensive childrens hospital that looks like will be years before completion, you have Larry Goodman being overpaid by €10m and the government refusing to take steps to reclaim the money and you have a family business of a FG TD receiving a government contract for €3.2m to recruit health workers on zero hour contracts......

But you seem more intent of discussing the opposition that the parties who consistently screw the citizen over - quite a bizarre outlook.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 26, 2021, 02:25:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:53:08 PM

Once again, public spending wasn't the issue. Lack of regulation on the banking sector was. You're talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking in fact.

FFG have a track record proven in destroying the economy.

Our current account deficit was 7% of GNP in 2008, before a cent was paid off the banking sector debt. This was all to do with public spending.

The Shinners had no solutions then. They still have no solutions.

Absolute nonsense.

Public spending again was not the issue,
the collapse of the baking sector which had to be bailed out to the tune of €64bn was the problem, lumped on the tax payer for decades to come.

Now you could certainly raise issues on how FFG spend the taxpayers money. You have FFG currently breaking records on the world's most expensive childrens hospital that looks like will be years before completion, you have Larry Goodman being overpaid by €10m and the government refusing to take steps to reclaim the money and you have a family business of a FG TD receiving a government contract for €3.2m to recruit health workers on zero hour contracts......

But you seem more intent of discussing the opposition that the parties who consistently screw the citizen over - quite a bizarre outlook.

Do you even know what a current account deficit is?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 02:42:17 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 02:25:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:53:08 PM

Once again, public spending wasn't the issue. Lack of regulation on the banking sector was. You're talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking in fact.

FFG have a track record proven in destroying the economy.

Our current account deficit was 7% of GNP in 2008, before a cent was paid off the banking sector debt. This was all to do with public spending.

The Shinners had no solutions then. They still have no solutions.

Absolute nonsense.

Public spending again was not the issue,
the collapse of the baking sector which had to be bailed out to the tune of €64bn was the problem, lumped on the tax payer for decades to come.

Now you could certainly raise issues on how FFG spend the taxpayers money. You have FFG currently breaking records on the world's most expensive childrens hospital that looks like will be years before completion, you have Larry Goodman being overpaid by €10m and the government refusing to take steps to reclaim the money and you have a family business of a FG TD receiving a government contract for €3.2m to recruit health workers on zero hour contracts......

But you seem more intent of discussing the opposition that the parties who consistently screw the citizen over - quite a bizarre outlook.

Do you even know what a current account deficit is?

And once again, I implore on you that the state had to bail the banks out for €64bn.

You seem to be engaging in any sort of mental gymnastics you can not to hold the parties in government as repsonsible for the crisis they oversaw. The collapse of the banking sector was the cause of the financial crisis. The government did not regulate the baking sector and then decided to have the tax payer pay for the bondholder.

Those facts leave it a bit awkward for you to spin it onto the opposition parties though so that's why you are windmilling.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 26, 2021, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 02:42:17 PM

And once again, I implore on you that the state had to bail the banks out for €64bn.

You seem to be engaging in any sort of mental gymnastics you can not to hold the parties in government as repsonsible for the crisis they oversaw. The collapse of the banking sector was the cause of the financial crisis. The government did not regulate the baking sector and then decided to have the tax payer pay for the bondholder.

Those facts leave it a bit awkward for you to spin it onto the opposition parties though so that's why you are windmilling.

We know that there is a monstrous national debt problem that the banking bailouts worsened.

But there was also another problem of runaway public spending that was financed in the boom years by runaway tax receipts. Once the 2008 crash hit, the tax receipts dried up and the spending became unaffordable. The result was years of public sector pay cuts and austerity.

The Shinners and Fine Gael contributed to both problems, even if neither of them were in power in the decade prior to 2008.



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 02:55:29 PM

We know that there is a monstrous national debt problem that the banking bailouts worsened.

But there was also another problem of runaway public spending that was financed in the boom years by runaway tax receipts. Once the 2008 crash hit, the tax receipts dried up and the spending became unaffordable. The result was years of public sector pay cuts and austerity.

The Shinners and Fine Gael contributed to both problems, even if neither of them were in power in the decade prior to 2008.

What you are saying is absolutely risible.

SF had 4 seats out of 166 in the Free State General Election in 2007.

4 seats and you are blaming them for the policies and governmental decisions that led to the financial crisis that broke out in 2008? A fringe party with 2.4% of Dail seats being blamed for government decisions.

What you are saying insults people's intelligence, it's Comical Ali level behaviour.

It's like blaming PBP for FG's economic policies in the last government, utter insanity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:03:52 PM
Just a couple of random comments. Firstly on being a Nationalist. It is possible to be a Nationalist and not want a UI without guarantees that your healthcare and financial future is secure. these are not contradictory positions and are reasonable. They will also need addressed if a vote for a UI is to be won. Secondly we Irish are great at blaming the Catholic Church for all the social woes of the country in. the last century. This conservatism was not just the preserve of Catholicism, Protestant Churches in the North were not dissimilar in their hold on personal values and morals and there are many examples of other countries at that time in the vice of conservative christianity, and that's before we even mention islam. As with everything it is imo not helpful looking back at history through the prism of today, rather look forward.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:10:53 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:03:52 PM
Just a couple of random comments. Firstly on being a Nationalist. It is possible to be a Nationalist and not want a UI without guarantees that your healthcare and financial future is secure. these are not contradictory positions and are reasonable. They will also need addressed if a vote for a UI is to be won. Secondly we Irish are great at blaming the Catholic Church for all the social woes of the country in. the last century. This conservatism was not just the preserve of Catholicism, Protestant Churches in the North were not dissimilar in their hold on personal values and morals and there are many examples of other countries at that time in the vice of conservative christianity, and that's before we even mention islam. As with everything it is imo not helpful looking back at history through the prism of today, rather look forward.

A united Ireland should be a new Ireland, a break from two failed states. That is the selling point of it.

Of course you have an elite ruling class in each state who really do oppose it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 03:12:12 PM
Won't vote for a UI unless someone "guarantees that my healthcare and financial future is secure".

I've heard it all now ::)

Who was it called ye "spongers" years ago??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 03:12:12 PM
Won't vote for a UI unless someone "guarantees that my healthcare and financial future is secure".

I've heard it all now ::)

Who was it called ye "spongers" years ago??

Adlof Rossfan here telling people they don't deserve any form of healthcare.

I really do have to wonder sometimes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 26, 2021, 03:16:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 02:55:29 PM

We know that there is a monstrous national debt problem that the banking bailouts worsened.

But there was also another problem of runaway public spending that was financed in the boom years by runaway tax receipts. Once the 2008 crash hit, the tax receipts dried up and the spending became unaffordable. The result was years of public sector pay cuts and austerity.

The Shinners and Fine Gael contributed to both problems, even if neither of them were in power in the decade prior to 2008.

What you are saying is absolutely risible.

SF had 4 seats out of 166 in the Free State General Election in 2007.

4 seats and you are blaming them for the policies and governmental decisions that led to the financial crisis that broke out in 2008? A fringe party with 2.4% of Dail seats being blamed for government decisions.

What you are saying insults people's intelligence, it's Comical Ali level behaviour.

It's like blaming PBP for FG's economic policies in the last government, utter insanity.

So what? Fine Gael were decimated in the 2002 election and still were a miserable minority after 2007. Both parties not only supported the bank guarantee, but they also supported Fianna Fáil's  & the Greens' spending splurge, complaining only that they weren't spending enough. Labour to their credit opposed the bank guarantee but were also roaring for more and more money to be spent everywhere and anywhere.

All 5 parties have blood on their hands. All are part of the same rotten political cartel. And all 5 will between them wreck a united Ireland if they ever get a chance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 26, 2021, 03:20:30 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:03:52 PM
Just a couple of random comments. Firstly on being a Nationalist. It is possible to be a Nationalist and not want a UI without guarantees that your healthcare and financial future is secure. these are not contradictory positions and are reasonable. They will also need addressed if a vote for a UI is to be won. Secondly we Irish are great at blaming the Catholic Church for all the social woes of the country in. the last century. This conservatism was not just the preserve of Catholicism, Protestant Churches in the North were not dissimilar in their hold on personal values and morals and there are many examples of other countries at that time in the vice of conservative christianity, and that's before we even mention islam. As with everything it is imo not helpful looking back at history through the prism of today, rather look forward.

Dunno. Think the definition of an Irish Nationalist is pretty clear. Doubt you can support a union with Britain (or at least preserving the status quo) and be an Irish Nationalist. Maybe you can hold those contradictory points of view.
Yes there a loads of questions to be answered. Only a fool would call for a Unity referendum without having a clear agreement on what a UI would look like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:22:05 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 03:16:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 02:55:29 PM

We know that there is a monstrous national debt problem that the banking bailouts worsened.

But there was also another problem of runaway public spending that was financed in the boom years by runaway tax receipts. Once the 2008 crash hit, the tax receipts dried up and the spending became unaffordable. The result was years of public sector pay cuts and austerity.

The Shinners and Fine Gael contributed to both problems, even if neither of them were in power in the decade prior to 2008.

What you are saying is absolutely risible.

SF had 4 seats out of 166 in the Free State General Election in 2007.

4 seats and you are blaming them for the policies and governmental decisions that led to the financial crisis that broke out in 2008? A fringe party with 2.4% of Dail seats being blamed for government decisions.

What you are saying insults people's intelligence, it's Comical Ali level behaviour.

It's like blaming PBP for FG's economic policies in the last government, utter insanity.

So what? Fine Gael were decimated in the 2002 election and still were a miserable minority after 2007. Both parties not only supported the bank guarantee, but they also supported Fianna Fáil's  & the Greens' spending splurge, complaining only that they weren't spending enough. Labour to their credit opposed the bank guarantee but were also roaring for more and more money to be spent everywhere and anywhere.

All 5 parties have blood on their hands. All are part of the same rotten political cartel. And all 5 will between them wreck a united Ireland if they ever get a chance.

So what???????????????? This is utterly insane what you are saying. Labour vote for austerity and to put the burden of the bond holders on citizens for decades.

If public spending improves services and facilities for the population then you can't spend enough of it. The problem is FFG like to put taxpayers money into the hands of their cronies and vested interests.

FFG have ruled the state since it's inception but you are trying to shift the blame on the 2008 financial crisis on a fringe party who had 4 seats out of 166.

It's like trying to blame Leitrim for not stopping Dublin win the All Ireland this year. It's insane, utterly illogical and shows the type of manure you are willing to talk to deflect away from those responsible.

I have heard some ridiculous things on this forum but you've made the most idiotic contributions I have ever come across on here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 03:12:12 PM
Won't vote for a UI unless someone "guarantees that my healthcare and financial future is secure".

I've heard it all now ::)

Who was it called ye "spongers" years ago??

Sponger my hole, I have worked and paid Tax and National Insurance for 42 years, never claimed the dole or sick pay once.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:26:30 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 26, 2021, 03:20:30 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:03:52 PM
Just a couple of random comments. Firstly on being a Nationalist. It is possible to be a Nationalist and not want a UI without guarantees that your healthcare and financial future is secure. these are not contradictory positions and are reasonable. They will also need addressed if a vote for a UI is to be won. Secondly we Irish are great at blaming the Catholic Church for all the social woes of the country in. the last century. This conservatism was not just the preserve of Catholicism, Protestant Churches in the North were not dissimilar in their hold on personal values and morals and there are many examples of other countries at that time in the vice of conservative christianity, and that's before we even mention islam. As with everything it is imo not helpful looking back at history through the prism of today, rather look forward.

Dunno. Think the definition of an Irish Nationalist is pretty clear. Doubt you can support a union with Britain (or at least preserving the status quo) and be an Irish Nationalist. Maybe you can hold those contradictory points of view.
Yes there a loads of questions to be answered. Only a fool would call for a Unity referendum without having a clear agreement on what a UI would look like.
I don't support the union but a UI has to improve peoples lot otherwise it won't carry. What I am saying is there needs to be a clear path and planning, look at Brexit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 26, 2021, 03:28:43 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:26:30 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 26, 2021, 03:20:30 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:03:52 PM
Just a couple of random comments. Firstly on being a Nationalist. It is possible to be a Nationalist and not want a UI without guarantees that your healthcare and financial future is secure. these are not contradictory positions and are reasonable. They will also need addressed if a vote for a UI is to be won. Secondly we Irish are great at blaming the Catholic Church for all the social woes of the country in. the last century. This conservatism was not just the preserve of Catholicism, Protestant Churches in the North were not dissimilar in their hold on personal values and morals and there are many examples of other countries at that time in the vice of conservative christianity, and that's before we even mention islam. As with everything it is imo not helpful looking back at history through the prism of today, rather look forward.

Dunno. Think the definition of an Irish Nationalist is pretty clear. Doubt you can support a union with Britain (or at least preserving the status quo) and be an Irish Nationalist. Maybe you can hold those contradictory points of view.
Yes there a loads of questions to be answered. Only a fool would call for a Unity referendum without having a clear agreement on what a UI would look like.
I don't support the union but a UI has to improve peoples lot otherwise it won't carry. What I am saying is there needs to be a clear path and planning, look at Brexit.

Fair enough. I'd go along with that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 26, 2021, 03:42:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:22:05 PM

So what???????????????? This is utterly insane what you are saying. Labour vote for austerity and to put the burden of the bond holders on citizens for decades.

If public spending improves services and facilities for the population then you can't spend enough of it. The problem is FFG like to put taxpayers money into the hands of their cronies and vested interests.

FFG have ruled the state since it's inception but you are trying to shift the blame on the 2008 financial crisis on a fringe party who had 4 seats out of 166.

It's like trying to blame Leitrim for not stopping Dublin win the All Ireland this year. It's insane, utterly illogical and shows the type of manure you are willing to talk to deflect away from those responsible.

I have heard some ridiculous things on this forum but you've made the most idiotic contributions I have ever come across on here.

No, it's like blaming Leitrim and every other county for Ireland's Covid problem if the behaviour in Leitrim is no better nor worse than elsewhere.

SF had many opportunities in the pre-2008 period to demand a halt both to the ruinous public spending and to the crazy bank lending that was going on at the time, where ordinary people were being lent millions to bid up the price of green fields. Again they had an opportunity in 2008 to reject the bank guarantee. 

They failed on all 3 counts.

And their approach to Covid has been little better - picking the odd hole in the government's policies but not even a whisper of a different approach let alone solutions.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 03:42:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 03:22:05 PM

So what???????????????? This is utterly insane what you are saying. Labour vote for austerity and to put the burden of the bond holders on citizens for decades.

If public spending improves services and facilities for the population then you can't spend enough of it. The problem is FFG like to put taxpayers money into the hands of their cronies and vested interests.

FFG have ruled the state since it's inception but you are trying to shift the blame on the 2008 financial crisis on a fringe party who had 4 seats out of 166.

It's like trying to blame Leitrim for not stopping Dublin win the All Ireland this year. It's insane, utterly illogical and shows the type of manure you are willing to talk to deflect away from those responsible.

I have heard some ridiculous things on this forum but you've made the most idiotic contributions I have ever come across on here.

No, it's like blaming Leitrim and every other county for Ireland's Covid problem if the behaviour in Leitrim is no better nor worse than elsewhere.

SF had many opportunities in the pre-2008 period to demand a halt both to the ruinous public spending and to the crazy bank lending that was going on at the time, where ordinary people were being lent millions to bid up the price of green fields. Again they had an opportunity in 2008 to reject the bank guarantee. 

They failed on all 3 counts.

And their approach to Covid has been little better - picking the odd hole in the government's policies but not even a whisper of a different approach let alone solutions.

SF had no opportunities, they have never had power in the free state. What difference would SF rejecting the bank guarantee in 2008 have had? A symolic gesture that would not have stopped it.

It's completely illogical what you are spouting. Only those vested with power have the ability to make decisions. It was a FFG decision to a FFG problem

I would agree that SF have been extremely poor throughout this pandemic however.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 26, 2021, 03:55:59 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 03:12:12 PM
Won't vote for a UI unless someone "guarantees that my healthcare and financial future is secure".

I've heard it all now ::)

Who was it called ye "spongers" years ago??

Sponger my hole, I have worked and paid Tax and National Insurance for 42 years, never claimed the dole or sick pay once.

Apples,
      Pre Covid the NHS in Northern Ireland was on its uppers anyway. Getting a consultation on most things deemed to be non urgent, 1 plus years, GP's visit one to two weeks minimum.
I'm not that fussed if I lose that type of NHS tomorrow if I'm honest and I don't currently have a private healthcare insurance for me or my family. I'd pay for my prescriptions, I'd pay the €40 to see a GP if I could see them that day or the day after, no bother.

As for your financial future, don't know if you're in the public or private sector but you can see that block grant that comes over from Whitehall (that unionists seem to be so proud of) being cut in a dramatic way in the next year or two, so economic hardship is on its way for the wee six as part of the UK.

Angelo like a lot of died in the wool shinners does the cause he's espousing more harm than good, Sinn Fein need to get their heads round that and wise to f**k up as with Biden in the WH and ballbag Boris in Downing street there could never be a better time to constructively work for a UI, an imperfect one but one all the same to get behind and hope that the good will factor brings in decent foreign investment and the likes.

The Utopian 32 county socialist republic needs put on the back-burner till the 32 county republic is achieved.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 04:09:59 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 26, 2021, 03:55:59 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 03:12:12 PM
Won't vote for a UI unless someone "guarantees that my healthcare and financial future is secure".

I've heard it all now ::)

Who was it called ye "spongers" years ago??

Sponger my hole, I have worked and paid Tax and National Insurance for 42 years, never claimed the dole or sick pay once.

Apples,
      Pre Covid the NHS in Northern Ireland was on its uppers anyway. Getting a consultation on most things deemed to be non urgent, 1 plus years, GP's visit one to two weeks minimum.
I'm not that fussed if I lose that type of NHS tomorrow if I'm honest and I don't currently have a private healthcare insurance for me or my family. I'd pay for my prescriptions, I'd pay the €40 to see a GP if I could see them that day or the day after, no bother.

As for your financial future, don't know if you're in the public or private sector but you can see that block grant that comes over from Whitehall (that unionists seem to be so proud of) being cut in a dramatic way in the next year or two, so economic hardship is on its way for the wee six as part of the UK.

Angelo like a lot of died in the wool shinners does the cause he's espousing more harm than good, Sinn Fein need to get their heads round that and wise to f**k up as with Biden in the WH and ballbag Boris in Downing street there could never be a better time to constructively work for a UI, an imperfect one but one all the same to get behind and hope that the good will factor brings in decent foreign investment and the likes.

The Utopian 32 county socialist republic needs put on the back-burner till the 32 county republic is achieved.

I'm not a died in the wool shinner.

I have plenty of criticisms of SF but I am a republican firstly and a socialist secondly and the voting options are very limited for republicans on this island.



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 26, 2021, 04:16:50 PM
I wish SF were in power in the South in a way. Be a wake up call. It'd a bit like Mercia electing Trump. They tried it thinking things couldn't be much worse but then he turned the US into one big giant military parade and well sure I'll stop at this juncture.
If the South want to see what it'd be like to be governed by SF just look to the North. Massive NHS waiting lists, huge levels of poverty, school children dealing with a primary to secondary school transfer mess, Incompetence at government and CS levels that is astounding, power centralised west of the Bann, embarrassed on the international stage, and no Irish language act!!! This is the reality.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 04:27:55 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 26, 2021, 04:16:50 PM
I wish SF were in power in the South in a way. Be a wake up call. It'd a bit like Mercia electing Trump. They tried it thinking things couldn't be much worse but then he turned the US into one big giant military parade and well sure I'll stop at this juncture.
If the South want to see what it'd be like to be governed by SF THE BRITS just look to the North. Massive NHS waiting lists, huge levels of poverty, school children dealing with a primary to secondary school transfer mess, Incompetence at government and CS levels that is astounding, power centralised west of the Bann, embarrassed on the international stage, and no Irish language act!!! This is the reality.
Fixed
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 04:56:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 03:12:12 PM
Won't vote for a UI unless someone "guarantees that my healthcare and financial future is secure".

I've heard it all now ::)

Who was it called ye "spongers" years ago??

Sponger my hole, I have worked and paid Tax and National Insurance for 42 years, never claimed the dole or sick pay once.
Sound.
Westminster will be paying your OAP or will they send all your contributions to the new AI Exchequer?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 26, 2021, 04:16:50 PM
I wish SF were in power in the South in a way. Be a wake up call. It'd a bit like Mercia electing Trump. They tried it thinking things couldn't be much worse but then he turned the US into one big giant military parade and well sure I'll stop at this juncture.
If the South want to see what it'd be like to be governed by SF just look to the North. Massive NHS waiting lists, huge levels of poverty, school children dealing with a primary to secondary school transfer mess, Incompetence at government and CS levels that is astounding, power centralised west of the Bann, embarrassed on the international stage, and no Irish language act!!! This is the reality.

The north is governed by Tories in Westminister.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 26, 2021, 05:07:41 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 04:27:55 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 26, 2021, 04:16:50 PM
I wish SF were in power in the South in a way. Be a wake up call. It'd a bit like Mercia electing Trump. They tried it thinking things couldn't be much worse but then he turned the US into one big giant military parade and well sure I'll stop at this juncture.
If the South want to see what it'd be like to be governed by SF THE BRITS just look to the North. Massive NHS waiting lists, huge levels of poverty, school children dealing with a primary to secondary school transfer mess, Incompetence at government and CS levels that is astounding, power centralised west of the Bann, embarrassed on the international stage, and no Irish language act!!! This is the reality.
Fixed

You can't blame Britain for all the problems and then take credit for the good bits. (granted there's not that much to take credit for)
If you can't govern then get out of the way. This is the outworking of the Stormont house agreement that SF exclusively negotiated and agreed with the DUP. It's similar to what the Brexiteers are doing. Blaming others for their shit show. SF need to own it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 26, 2021, 05:12:03 PM
Trailer. I'm going to assume you're intelligent enough to know that

1. Stormont is a glorified county council

And

2. Mahatma Gandhi would struggle to govern with the DUP
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on January 26, 2021, 05:17:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: restorepride on January 25, 2021, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 09:58:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 25, 2021, 07:04:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 25, 2021, 06:01:32 PM
So homelessness, corruption, massive wealth inequality, institutionalised coverup of sexual abuse, landing the debts of billionaires onto to citizens to pay back is the type of normal you strive for?

Corruption is everywhere that there is money. Inequality in the ROI is less than many places owing to a progressive tax system the GINI coefficient after tax is quite respectable. Some debts of billionaires were supported, but many debts also belong to those citizens in the form of pension funds and the like.

Sounds like justification of these things. Seems to me the only thing people promoting the Free State as a great country is that it's a tax haven for multinational companies.

They may not be unique to the free state but it gives you an idea how things work.
What sort of society would you like to live in, Angelo?

One where the needs of people are put ahead of vested interests, one where politicians are held to account for their decisions and abuses of power, one where governments strive to introduce fairer taxation on the high earners and corporations and one where the state provides the best quality of public services and facilities. In any form of equitable society the needs of citizens must come first and that' what we should aspire to.
Sounds good - I'll go with that.  Government free from church influence?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on January 26, 2021, 06:04:45 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 26, 2021, 03:55:59 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 03:12:12 PM
Won't vote for a UI unless someone "guarantees that my healthcare and financial future is secure".

I've heard it all now ::)

Who was it called ye "spongers" years ago??

Sponger my hole, I have worked and paid Tax and National Insurance for 42 years, never claimed the dole or sick pay once.

Apples,
      Pre Covid the NHS in Northern Ireland was on its uppers anyway. Getting a consultation on most things deemed to be non urgent, 1 plus years, GP's visit one to two weeks minimum.
I'm not that fussed if I lose that type of NHS tomorrow if I'm honest and I don't currently have a private healthcare insurance for me or my family. I'd pay for my prescriptions, I'd pay the €40 to see a GP if I could see them that day or the day after, no bother.

As for your financial future, don't know if you're in the public or private sector but you can see that block grant that comes over from Whitehall (that unionists seem to be so proud of) being cut in a dramatic way in the next year or two, so economic hardship is on its way for the wee six as part of the UK.

Angelo like a lot of died in the wool shinners does the cause he's espousing more harm than good, Sinn Fein need to get their heads round that and wise to f**k up as with Biden in the WH and ballbag Boris in Downing street there could never be a better time to constructively work for a UI, an imperfect one but one all the same to get behind and hope that the good will factor brings in decent foreign investment and the likes.

The Utopian 32 county socialist republic needs put on the back-burner till the 32 county republic is achieved.
Good analysis as usual JC. I think most of us would agree with many of Angelo's concerns if not his/her approach. Many of my opinions are socialist but it would be a high risk unrealistic strategy to try to achieve a socialist republic in the short term. A 32 county Ireland can be achieved constitutionally however by winning the economic argument. Such an arrangement has to respect and incorporate Britishness , learning the lesson from the way  Irishness was marginalised in the North. ROI isn't perfect but apart from the health service it blows NI out of the water on most parameters. This is controversial JC , but the NHS though far from perfect isn't as bad as it is portrayed in the Steven Nolan led media. I'm not a conspiracy theorists but it suits the Tory agenda to undermine and ridicule the NHS but that's a different argument entirely,
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 26, 2021, 06:21:10 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 26, 2021, 06:04:45 PM
Good analysis as usual JC. I think most of us would agree with many of Angelo's concerns if not his/her approach. Many of my opinions are socialist but it would be a high risk unrealistic strategy to try to achieve a socialist republic in the short term. A 32 county Ireland can be achieved constitutionally however by winning the economic argument. Such an arrangement has to respect and incorporate Britishness , learning the lesson from the way  Irishness was marginalised in the North. ROI isn't perfect but apart from the health service it blows NI out of the water on most parameters. This is controversial JC , but the NHS though far from perfect isn't as bad as it is portrayed in the Steven Nolan led media. I'm not a conspiracy theorists but it suits the Tory agenda to undermine and ridicule the NHS but that's a different argument entirely,

It is hard to see who the NHS is better as people live 1.7 years longer in the 26 counties (last year) with Covid I doubt if that gap has closed, although both jurisdictions might have seen a decline.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on January 26, 2021, 06:58:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:53:08 PM

Once again, public spending wasn't the issue. Lack of regulation on the banking sector was. You're talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking in fact.

FFG have a track record proven in destroying the economy.

Our current account deficit was 7% of GNP in 2008, before a cent was paid off the banking sector debt. This was all to do with public spending.

The Shinners had no solutions then. They still have no solutions.

Absolute nonsense.

Public spending again was not the issue, the collapse of the baking sector which had to be bailed out to the tune of €64bn was the problem, lumped on the tax payer for decades to come.


We can argue about the guaranteeing the banks until the cows come home, and it was a huge mistake not to let Anglo fail. The reality is in a border poll, Ireland's debt per GDP has been coming down since the Financial Crisis, whereas UK's has been zooming up, so much so that it is now twice Ireland's. Do we want to win a border poll or not?  To win will mean showing the advantages instead of writing the DUP's "Ireland is a shithole" manifesto for them.
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-debt-percentage-gdp



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 26, 2021, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: weareros on January 26, 2021, 06:58:30 PM
We can argue about the guaranteeing the banks until the cows come home, and it was a huge mistake not to let Anglo fail. The reality is in a border poll, Ireland's debt per GDP has been coming down since the Financial Crisis, whereas UK's has been zooming up, so much so that it is now twice Ireland's. Do we want to win a border poll or not?  To win will mean showing the advantages instead of writing the DUP's "Ireland is a shithole" manifesto for them.
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-debt-percentage-gdp

Sadly, some people would prefer their  "Ireland is a shithole" manifesto and giving off about FF or FG to uniting Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 07:46:46 PM
Quote from: weareros on January 26, 2021, 06:58:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: five points on January 26, 2021, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 12:53:08 PM

Once again, public spending wasn't the issue. Lack of regulation on the banking sector was. You're talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking in fact.

FFG have a track record proven in destroying the economy.

Our current account deficit was 7% of GNP in 2008, before a cent was paid off the banking sector debt. This was all to do with public spending.

The Shinners had no solutions then. They still have no solutions.

Absolute nonsense.

Public spending again was not the issue, the collapse of the baking sector which had to be bailed out to the tune of €64bn was the problem, lumped on the tax payer for decades to come.


We can argue about the guaranteeing the banks until the cows come home, and it was a huge mistake not to let Anglo fail. The reality is in a border poll, Ireland's debt per GDP has been coming down since the Financial Crisis, whereas UK's has been zooming up, so much so that it is now twice Ireland's. Do we want to win a border poll or not?  To win will mean showing the advantages instead of writing the DUP's "Ireland is a shithole" manifesto for them.
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-debt-percentage-gdp

You seem to be under the illusion the north will be joining the 26. It's an end to two rotten states and an opportunity to form a new state that can be progressive for its citizens.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 08:02:29 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 26, 2021, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: weareros on January 26, 2021, 06:58:30 PM
We can argue about the guaranteeing the banks until the cows come home, and it was a huge mistake not to let Anglo fail. The reality is in a border poll, Ireland's debt per GDP has been coming down since the Financial Crisis, whereas UK's has been zooming up, so much so that it is now twice Ireland's. Do we want to win a border poll or not?  To win will mean showing the advantages instead of writing the DUP's "Ireland is a shithole" manifesto for them.
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-debt-percentage-gdp

Sadly, some people would prefer their  "Ireland is a shithole" manifesto and giving off about FF or FG to uniting Ireland.
If the 26 is so awful I presume they don't want to unite with us?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on January 26, 2021, 08:03:23 PM
One thing with referendums in Ireland the last few years is the facts quickly get lost once the campaigning starts. To even think we'll see the lunatic fringe from SF/die hard nationalists on one side debating/arguing with Unionists/DUP on the other side is not something to look forward to.

When the referendum is called I expect it to get very bitter and very toxic quite quickly
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 08:06:51 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 26, 2021, 08:03:23 PM
One thing with referendums in Ireland the last few years is the facts quickly get lost once the campaigning starts. To even think we'll see the lunatic fringe from SF/die hard nationalists on one side debating/arguing with Unionists/DUP on the other side is not something to look forward to.

When the referendum is called I expect it to get very bitter and very toxic quite quickly

And then we will have lunatic partitionists like yourself who support parties who are experts in crashing the economy filling the debate with misinformation.

It will be fascinating
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Boycey on January 26, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
It must take some effort on Angelo's behalf to come across as a cretin across such a wide range of threads..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: Boycey on January 26, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
It must take some effort on Angelo's behalf to come across as a cretin across such a wide range of threads..

I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that insult.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on January 26, 2021, 10:31:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: Boycey on January 26, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
It must take some effort on Angelo's behalf to come across as a cretin across such a wide range of threads..

I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that insult.

I had to look back all of one comment to see you call a fellow poster a lunatic, would you like to withdraw that insult while you're at it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on January 26, 2021, 11:41:25 PM
Quote from: Boycey on January 26, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
It must take some effort on Angelo's behalf to come across as a cretin across such a wide range of threads..

It's kinda surreal.

I actually agree with some of what he's posting around the UI debate.

But the constant, inane, repetitive manure that flows out of him would almost turn you off the idea.

One thing's for sure, if the debate is ever to be had - guys like him need to be kept locked the hell away for it to have any chance of carrying
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: OgraAnDun on January 27, 2021, 09:24:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: Boycey on January 26, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
It must take some effort on Angelo's behalf to come across as a cretin across such a wide range of threads..

I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that insult.

Is it an insult if it's a fact?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 09:40:29 AM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on January 27, 2021, 09:24:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: Boycey on January 26, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
It must take some effort on Angelo's behalf to come across as a cretin across such a wide range of threads..

I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that insult.

Is it an insult if it's a fact?

Are you calling me a cretin now too?

I'm thick skinned enough to take it but if its not alright for me to call a poster who puts me on ignore and refuse to engage with me because he couldn't refute NHS reports a coward, then it's not alright to call me a cretin.

I've been called a psychopath, a cretin, Harold Shipman, accused of wanting to suffocate the elderly with a pillow among other things on this forum in the past week or so and then banned for calling another poster a coward. So if the rules are there then I think they should be applied across the board.

Now as I said, those sort of things are like water off a duck's back to me but clearly there is a very sad poster who is feeling the need to go around and try and grass me up for every post I make then what can I do.

I'll let Boycey remove that comment if he wants but if the rules are going to be applied then they shouldn't be just to a few select posters.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 27, 2021, 10:57:43 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 09:40:29 AM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on January 27, 2021, 09:24:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: Boycey on January 26, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
It must take some effort on Angelo's behalf to come across as a cretin across such a wide range of threads..

I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that insult.

Is it an insult if it's a fact?

Are you calling me a cretin now too?

I'm thick skinned enough to take it but if its not alright for me to call a poster who puts me on ignore and refuse to engage with me because he couldn't refute NHS reports a coward, then it's not alright to call me a cretin.

I've been called a psychopath, a cretin, Harold Shipman, accused of wanting to suffocate the elderly with a pillow among other things on this forum in the past week or so and then banned for calling another poster a coward. So if the rules are there then I think they should be applied across the board.

Now as I said, those sort of things are like water off a duck's back to me but clearly there is a very sad poster who is feeling the need to go around and try and grass me up for every post I make then what can I do.

I'll let Boycey remove that comment if he wants but if the rules are going to be applied then they shouldn't be just to a few select posters.

Stop crying. You're well able to dish it out so you should be able to take a bit too. I engaged with you 6 or 7 times yesterday and in almost all your replies to me you couldn't help but throw in at least one inflammatory comment. What goes around comes around.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 27, 2021, 11:05:32 AM
So some people

Are against
The North
The South
Vaccines
Lockdowns

But for
Sinn Fein

Imagine living in that world for even a few minutes. Brains definitely in short supply.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 11:26:15 AM
Quote from: five points on January 27, 2021, 10:57:43 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 09:40:29 AM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on January 27, 2021, 09:24:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 26, 2021, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: Boycey on January 26, 2021, 08:57:22 PM
It must take some effort on Angelo's behalf to come across as a cretin across such a wide range of threads..

I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that insult.

Is it an insult if it's a fact?

Are you calling me a cretin now too?

I'm thick skinned enough to take it but if its not alright for me to call a poster who puts me on ignore and refuse to engage with me because he couldn't refute NHS reports a coward, then it's not alright to call me a cretin.

I've been called a psychopath, a cretin, Harold Shipman, accused of wanting to suffocate the elderly with a pillow among other things on this forum in the past week or so and then banned for calling another poster a coward. So if the rules are there then I think they should be applied across the board.

Now as I said, those sort of things are like water off a duck's back to me but clearly there is a very sad poster who is feeling the need to go around and try and grass me up for every post I make then what can I do.

I'll let Boycey remove that comment if he wants but if the rules are going to be applied then they shouldn't be just to a few select posters.

Stop crying. You're well able to dish it out so you should be able to take a bit too. I engaged with you 6 or 7 times yesterday and in almost all your replies to me you couldn't help but throw in at least one inflammatory comment. What goes around comes around.

I commented on the ludicrous content of your post, I didn't make any insults toward you.

And I was banned for calling a poster a coward because he put me on ignore because he could not address the points I made to him. So I'm not crying here, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 11:26:51 AM
Quote from: trailer on January 27, 2021, 11:05:32 AM
So some people

Are against
The North
The South
Vaccines
Lockdowns

But for
Sinn Fein

Imagine living in that world for even a few minutes. Brains definitely in short supply.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 27, 2021, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 11:26:15 AM
I commented on the ludicrous content of your post, I didn't make any insults toward you.
I made no reference to insults, but to a succession of inflammatory comments, all made in the space of a few hours. And the next morning you're crying because someone else does it to you.  :D


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 11:53:03 AM
Quote from: five points on January 27, 2021, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 11:26:15 AM
I commented on the ludicrous content of your post, I didn't make any insults toward you.
I made no reference to insults, but to a succession of inflammatory comments, all made in the space of a few hours. And the next morning you're crying because someone else does it to you.  :D

I'm not crying about it but a certain poster, let's call him FossRan, is going around reporting every post I make trying to get me banned off the forum (while claiming to have me on ignore). I had to serve a 2 day ban for it recently for calling a poster a coward.

So I get banned for calling a poster a coward and I'm expected to sit on my hands when I get called a cretin, a psychopath, a resident arsehole, Harold Shipman and have it impugned on me that I want to suffocate elderly people with a pillow?

It seems to me there are a number of posters on here who are trying to goad a response out of me and get me banned by using insults. I've been told my the moderators that I can't respond in kind which is fair enough but I expect the same rules apply to everyone.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 27, 2021, 12:15:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 27, 2021, 11:53:03 AM
I expect the same rules apply to everyone.

I would expect that too, but (and notwithstanding my comments earlier, I'm not directing this at you) there is often an unpleasant atmosphere around here and I get the feeling that Covid has us all a bit rattled. Let's hope it improves.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 28, 2021, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 26, 2021, 06:04:45 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 26, 2021, 03:55:59 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 26, 2021, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 26, 2021, 03:12:12 PM
Won't vote for a UI unless someone "guarantees that my healthcare and financial future is secure".

I've heard it all now ::)

Who was it called ye "spongers" years ago??

Sponger my hole, I have worked and paid Tax and National Insurance for 42 years, never claimed the dole or sick pay once.

Apples,
      Pre Covid the NHS in Northern Ireland was on its uppers anyway. Getting a consultation on most things deemed to be non urgent, 1 plus years, GP's visit one to two weeks minimum.
I'm not that fussed if I lose that type of NHS tomorrow if I'm honest and I don't currently have a private healthcare insurance for me or my family. I'd pay for my prescriptions, I'd pay the €40 to see a GP if I could see them that day or the day after, no bother.

As for your financial future, don't know if you're in the public or private sector but you can see that block grant that comes over from Whitehall (that unionists seem to be so proud of) being cut in a dramatic way in the next year or two, so economic hardship is on its way for the wee six as part of the UK.

Angelo like a lot of died in the wool shinners does the cause he's espousing more harm than good, Sinn Fein need to get their heads round that and wise to f**k up as with Biden in the WH and ballbag Boris in Downing street there could never be a better time to constructively work for a UI, an imperfect one but one all the same to get behind and hope that the good will factor brings in decent foreign investment and the likes.

The Utopian 32 county socialist republic needs put on the back-burner till the 32 county republic is achieved.
Good analysis as usual JC. I think most of us would agree with many of Angelo's concerns if not his/her approach. Many of my opinions are socialist but it would be a high risk unrealistic strategy to try to achieve a socialist republic in the short term. A 32 county Ireland can be achieved constitutionally however by winning the economic argument. Such an arrangement has to respect and incorporate Britishness , learning the lesson from the way  Irishness was marginalised in the North. ROI isn't perfect but apart from the health service it blows NI out of the water on most parameters. This is controversial JC , but the NHS though far from perfect isn't as bad as it is portrayed in the Steven Nolan led media. I'm not a conspiracy theorists but it suits the Tory agenda to undermine and ridicule the NHS but that's a different argument entirely,

I don't base my opinions of the NHS on the Stephen Nolan show FFS, give me a bit of credit....

I base it on my own experiences of having my mother sitting in an A&E corridor for over 24 hours after she's bled out and dispatched her home with no care plan in place much to the shock of her GP. I base it on speaking to a friend who can barely walk and needs two knees and won't get them for at least 2 years. I base it on a mother in law who's cancer treatment was delayed so long that when they finally did get round to doing it, ended up deciding there was no point... This was all pre covid.

Yes, back before the Tories decimated the NHS in 2010 the NHS was very good, but not now..

I've relations living in the South so I know it's not perfect either but it's not as bad as the likes of Jim Allister would have you believe.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 28, 2021, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 28, 2021, 11:34:30 AM
I don't base my opinions of the NHS on the Stephen Nolan show FFS, give me a bit of credit....

I base it on my own experiences of having my mother sitting in an A&E corridor for over 24 hours after she's bled out and dispatched her home with no care plan in place much to the shock of her GP. I base it on speaking to a friend who can barely walk and needs two knees and won't get them for at least 2 years. I base it on a mother in law who's cancer treatment was delayed so long that when they finally did get round to doing it, ended up deciding there was no point... This was all pre covid.

Yes, back before the Tories decimated the NHS in 2010 the NHS was very good, but not now..

I've relations living in the South so I know it's not perfect either but it's not as bad as the likes of Jim Allister would have you believe.
It's worse. There's a very good reason why any of us down here who can afford it spend thousands every year on private health insurance. We all know people who went to their graves early because they didn't.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on January 28, 2021, 12:33:43 PM
I see the unscrupulous Tories are at it again trying to butter up the benefits of the Union.  We can expect that to go into overdrive for the foreseeable.  I just hope Scotland remembers the so called 'Pledge' made by Cameron and Brown etc the last time round ... once bitten and all of that.

English nationalism will see to the end of the union, the sooner the better for all concerned.  Any pragmatic unionists in the north should be taking stock, and understanding how they can ensure their representation in any new Ireland that emerges.  Scotland will pull the rug from under the union irrespective if Boris grants a IndyRef2 or not, we know he is never going to grant one anyway.  The fact that the Scots are dependent on an English PM 'granting' them a referendum says it all really.

For Unionists, the end of the union will be the end of all they have based their political ideology on for the past 100 years, how does such a high number of people cope with losing the foundation of all they actually believed in.  Another generation of mayhem on this island is the last thing anyone needs.  But that threat in itself cannot be allowed to prevent democracy having its say.  Time for some strong and pragmatic leadership from our Protestant countrymen ... wherever that will come from, who knows.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on January 28, 2021, 12:51:14 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 28, 2021, 11:34:30 AM
I don't base my opinions of the NHS on the Stephen Nolan show FFS, give me a bit of credit....

I base it on my own experiences of having my mother sitting in an A&E corridor for over 24 hours after she's bled out and dispatched her home with no care plan in place much to the shock of her GP. I base it on speaking to a friend who can barely walk and needs two knees and won't get them for at least 2 years. I base it on a mother in law who's cancer treatment was delayed so long that when they finally did get round to doing it, ended up deciding there was no point... This was all pre covid.

Yes, back before the Tories decimated the NHS in 2010 the NHS was very good, but not now..

I've relations living in the South so I know it's not perfect either but it's not as bad as the likes of Jim Allister would have you believe.
It's worse. There's a very good reason why any of us down here who can afford it spend thousands every year on private health insurance. We all know people who went to their graves early because they didn't.
Nordies can continue to access their British subvented NHS service, guaranteed  until that time  that medical card status be made available to at least 90% of the citizens.
The Brit exchequer can pay a % and  the EU can pay a % of extra costs.
Those are details for negotiation before a border poll.
More serious issues beckon, whatabout the DUP and their ilk (racist bigots beyond repair), going into coalition with Fine Gael? what a nightmare? Never! Never! Never!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 12:55:23 PM
The "Protestant" record to date hasn't been great.
Every "moderate" Unionist Party lasted no length while the current UUP leader seems to only come to life occasionally to out do DUPUDA or Allister in extremism.
Once Scotland goes then there won't be a Britain or Great Britain so where will that leave the Unionists' Britishness?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 28, 2021, 12:51:14 PM
Nordies can continue to access their British subvented NHS service, guaranteed  until that time  that medical card status be made available to at least 90% of the citizens.
The Brit exchequer can pay a % and  the EU can pay a % of extra costs.
Those are details for negotiation before a border poll.
More serious issues beckon, whatabout the DUP and their ilk (racist bigots beyond repair), going into coalition with Fine Gael? what a nightmare? Never! Never! Never!

You really think we in Cavan will keep paying GP & health insurance bills while our neighbours 20 miles north get it all for free?  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:10:35 PM
Governments and voters chose tax cuts over public health in the 26 and the "UK" over the last 20+ years.
If the population of the 32 Counties want Scandinavian standard Health and other public services they'll have to pay for them.
Seeing as Townies here wouldn't pay €3 a week towards their public water and sewerage and the United Ireland Party want to abolish the minimalist Local Property Tax...... :-\
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:13:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:10:35 PM
Governments and voters chose tax cuts over public health in the 26 and the "UK" over the last 20+ years.
If the population of the 32 Counties want Scandinavian standard Health and other public services they'll have to pay for them.
Seeing as Townies here wouldn't pay €3 a week towards their public water and sewerage and the United Ireland Party want to abolish the minimalist Local Property Tax...... :-\

You see the issue with FFG is they want the working class to pay the taxes.

When a MNC won't pay a €13bn tax bill to the Irish Gov, the FS Gov fight tooth and nail with the EU so the MNC doesn't pay.

When a €64bn bank bailout is needed to save billionaire bondholders, the FS decide to burden the tax payer with the bill.

There's different ways of tax but I find your sneering attitude to the working class utterly pathetic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:31:35 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:10:35 PM
Governments and voters chose tax cuts over public health in the 26 and the "UK" over the last 20+ years.


The opposite is true in the 26. Not even have there been no personal tax cuts since 2011, we've had the USC imposed, and tax credits and bands have not been adjusted for inflation, so that the tax burden is the highest in decades.

Meanwhile public health spending rose from €18.4bn in 2011 to €22.5bn in 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433207/current-healthcare-expenditure-ireland/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:37:33 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:31:35 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:10:35 PM
Governments and voters chose tax cuts over public health in the 26 and the "UK" over the last 20+ years.


The opposite is true in the 26. Not even have there been no personal tax cuts since 2011, we've had the USC imposed, and tax credits and bands have not been adjusted for inflation, so that the tax burden is the highest in decades.

Meanwhile public health spending rose from €18.4bn in 2011 to €22.5bn in 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433207/current-healthcare-expenditure-ireland/

The thing about increasing public health spend in the south is that little of it is spent in improving front line staff and doctors. Most of it goes into the hands of executives and construction companies.

The Children's Hospital fiasco shows why FG are unfit for government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:37:33 PM

The thing about increasing public health spend in the south is that little of it is spent in improving front line staff and doctors. Most of it goes into the hands of executives and construction companies.
Irish hospital consultants are paid extremely well too.

Quote
The Children's Hospital fiasco shows why FG are unfit for government.

No party has ever questioned why we're building a Children's Hospital in the first place. The whole project is a scam from start to finish.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:47:59 PM
Figures from Irish News
Waiting for OP appointment 6 Cos 300,000
Waiting for operation/procedure c100,000

Figures from NTPF for 26 at 31/12/20.
Waiting for OP appt 613,000
Waiting for procedure 63,000

By the end of the pandemic or the current wave at least I'd suspect we can add 10% to those.




Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:37:33 PM

The thing about increasing public health spend in the south is that little of it is spent in improving front line staff and doctors. Most of it goes into the hands of executives and construction companies.
Irish hospital consultants are paid extremely well too.

Quote
The Children's Hospital fiasco shows why FG are unfit for government.

No party has ever questioned why we're building a Children's Hospital in the first place. The whole project is a scam from start to finish.

It will end up around 5x over budget and 5x past the proposed completion date with big flaws in its facilities.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 28, 2021, 01:50:01 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:37:33 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:31:35 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:10:35 PM
Governments and voters chose tax cuts over public health in the 26 and the "UK" over the last 20+ years.


The opposite is true in the 26. Not even have there been no personal tax cuts since 2011, we've had the USC imposed, and tax credits and bands have not been adjusted for inflation, so that the tax burden is the highest in decades.

Meanwhile public health spending rose from €18.4bn in 2011 to €22.5bn in 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433207/current-healthcare-expenditure-ireland/

The thing about increasing public health spend in the south is that little of it is spent in improving front line staff and doctors. Most of it goes into the hands of executives and construction companies.

The Children's Hospital fiasco shows why FG are unfit for government.

Public money is always easier spent when it's the ruling classes that stand to benefit from it...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:57:06 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 28, 2021, 01:50:01 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:37:33 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:31:35 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:10:35 PM
Governments and voters chose tax cuts over public health in the 26 and the "UK" over the last 20+ years.


The opposite is true in the 26. Not even have there been no personal tax cuts since 2011, we've had the USC imposed, and tax credits and bands have not been adjusted for inflation, so that the tax burden is the highest in decades.

Meanwhile public health spending rose from €18.4bn in 2011 to €22.5bn in 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433207/current-healthcare-expenditure-ireland/

The thing about increasing public health spend in the south is that little of it is spent in improving front line staff and doctors. Most of it goes into the hands of executives and construction companies.

The Children's Hospital fiasco shows why FG are unfit for government.

Public money is always easier spent when it's the ruling classes that stand to benefit from it...

That's the culture of FFG. Vested interests who vote for policies that align with vested interest. It's why the free state is rotten, they have no interest in reform.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on January 28, 2021, 02:06:10 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:37:33 PM

The thing about increasing public health spend in the south is that little of it is spent in improving front line staff and doctors. Most of it goes into the hands of executives and construction companies.
Irish hospital consultants are paid extremely well too.

Quote
The Children's Hospital fiasco shows why FG are unfit for government.



No party has ever questioned why we're building a Children's Hospital in the first place. The whole project is a scam from start to finish.

The children's hospital is badly needed in this country. Temple Street for example is an old building that shouldn't be still in use, but unfortunately needs must.

The costs of the NCH are a joke at this stage and are still going up, but as it's the public sector in charge no is going to be held accountable for the screw ups.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 02:10:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 28, 2021, 02:06:10 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:37:33 PM

The thing about increasing public health spend in the south is that little of it is spent in improving front line staff and doctors. Most of it goes into the hands of executives and construction companies.
Irish hospital consultants are paid extremely well too.

Quote
The Children's Hospital fiasco shows why FG are unfit for government.



No party has ever questioned why we're building a Children's Hospital in the first place. The whole project is a scam from start to finish.

The children's hospital is badly needed in this country. Temple Street for example is an old building that shouldn't be still in use, but unfortunately needs must.

The costs of the NCH are a joke at this stage and are still going up, but as it's the public sector in charge no is going to be held accountable for the screw ups.

The party you vote for and support are repsonsible for it.

And the reason you claim to vote for them is their fiscal and economic capabilities.

Doesn't add up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 28, 2021, 03:09:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:47:59 PM
Figures from Irish News
Waiting for OP appointment 6 Cos 300,000
Waiting for operation/procedure c100,000

Figures from NTPF for 26 at 31/12/20.
Waiting for OP appt 613,000
Waiting for procedure 63,000

By the end of the pandemic or the current wave at least I'd suspect we can add 10% to those.

So with 36% of the population of the Republic

Pro Rata

The NI NHS should have 220,000 on waiting lists  appointments ,instead it has 80,00 more at 300,000

And it should have 36,000 waiting on procedures instead it has nearly double at 63,000

And we being told alll along that the Nordie health care was something to be looked up to !!!!!

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 28, 2021, 02:06:10 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 28, 2021, 01:37:33 PM

The thing about increasing public health spend in the south is that little of it is spent in improving front line staff and doctors. Most of it goes into the hands of executives and construction companies.
Irish hospital consultants are paid extremely well too.

Quote
The Children's Hospital fiasco shows why FG are unfit for government.



No party has ever questioned why we're building a Children's Hospital in the first place. The whole project is a scam from start to finish.

The children's hospital is badly needed in this country. Temple Street for example is an old building that shouldn't be still in use, but unfortunately needs must.

The costs of the NCH are a joke at this stage and are still going up, but as it's the public sector in charge no is going to be held accountable for the screw ups.
You can start with your hero Bertie who held it up for years till he got it in his constituency.
Then it took another load of years to get that overturned but it ended up in just as unsuitable a location because consultants didn't want to be travelling the extra 5 or 10km to the 2 most suitable sites of Tallaght or Blanchardstown.
At this stage it will probably be 2030.....

Comparing the 2 Public Health Services in Ireland these days is like 2 bald men arguing over which of them have the most single hairs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 28, 2021, 03:36:30 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 28, 2021, 03:09:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:47:59 PM
Figures from Irish News
Waiting for OP appointment 6 Cos 300,000
Waiting for operation/procedure c100,000

Figures from NTPF for 26 at 31/12/20.
Waiting for OP appt 613,000
Waiting for procedure 63,000

By the end of the pandemic or the current wave at least I'd suspect we can add 10% to those.

So with 36% of the population of the Republic

Pro Rata

The NI NHS should have 220,000 on waiting lists  appointments ,instead it has 80,00 more at 300,000

And it should have 36,000 waiting on procedures instead it has nearly double at 63,000

And we being told alll along that the Nordie health care was something to be looked up to !!!!!

The ROI waiting lists are routinely fiddled. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/are-patient-waiting-lists-shrinking-for-the-right-reasons-1.4147197

The same may also be happening up north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 28, 2021, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 03:36:30 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 28, 2021, 03:09:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 01:47:59 PM
Figures from Irish News
Waiting for OP appointment 6 Cos 300,000
Waiting for operation/procedure c100,000

Figures from NTPF for 26 at 31/12/20.
Waiting for OP appt 613,000
Waiting for procedure 63,000

By the end of the pandemic or the current wave at least I'd suspect we can add 10% to those.

So with 36% of the population of the Republic

Pro Rata

The NI NHS should have 220,000 on waiting lists  appointments ,instead it has 80,00 more at 300,000

And it should have 36,000 waiting on procedures instead it has nearly double at 63,000

And we being told alll along that the Nordie health care was something to be looked up to !!!!!

The ROI waiting lists are routinely fiddled. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/are-patient-waiting-lists-shrinking-for-the-right-reasons-1.4147197

The same may also be happening up north.

I was expecting the NI numbers to be 20% at the very worst of what they are

Given all the guff we hear about how great the NHS is
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 28, 2021, 04:04:04 PM
If you want treatment for anything in the North you're going private. The vast majority of my friends have all went private to have children.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 04:08:16 PM
Many private Hospitals in the 6?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 28, 2021, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 04:08:16 PM
Many private Hospitals in the 6?

Probably 2 or 3 hospitals but quite a few day clinics and the demand is increasing as waiting times in the NHS go through the roof even before Covid.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 28, 2021, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 04:08:16 PM
Many private Hospitals in the 6?

There's a few. But the difference between NHS and Private is a fancy room and about 3 years. In most cases it's the same consultant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 28, 2021, 04:27:08 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 28, 2021, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 04:08:16 PM
Many private Hospitals in the 6?

There's a few. But the difference between NHS and Private is a fancy room and about 3 years. In most cases it's the same consultant.


Very much so.

It used to be that if you saw the consultant privately for the first consultation you got bumped up their NHS waiting list.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2021, 04:46:12 PM
Here nearly all Consultants have private rooms in the public hospitals plus some private hospital practice too.
In the main their Public contracts are for 20 hours per week.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on January 28, 2021, 08:43:25 PM
Quote from: five points on January 28, 2021, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 28, 2021, 12:51:14 PM
Nordies can continue to access their British subvented NHS service, guaranteed  until that time  that medical card status be made available to at least 90% of the citizens.
The Brit exchequer can pay a % and  the EU can pay a % of extra costs.
Those are details for negotiation before a border poll.
More serious issues beckon, whatabout the DUP and their ilk (racist bigots beyond repair), going into coalition with Fine Gael? what a nightmare? Never! Never! Never!

You really think we in Cavan will keep paying GP & health insurance bills while our neighbours 20 miles north get it all for free?  ::)
I thought most of you Cavanites were hovering on the  poverty line and entitled to medical cards :P  Do you think it's beyond the boundaries of  any pre-border poll negotiations to come up with some structure that would allow mainly NI residents continue to use their medical services at their (alleged) high current standards?
Where I live, I am signed up to my local medical clinic, I am assigned a medic and that medic is the one who approves of further neccessary  treatment, I just can't turn up at  a hospital and ask for a kidney transplant.  My (very thin) medical files are in a secure digitally protected location,  I can access them to some basic degree, they are fully accesable to other medics but  there is a digital trail.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on January 28, 2021, 09:15:24 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 28, 2021, 04:04:04 PM
If you want treatment for anything in the North you're going private. The vast majority of my friends have all went private to have children.

Sorry trailer , that just isn't correct and insulting to those who work in the nhS. The NHS isn't perfect as JC has highlighted but it's available to everyone regardless of social class. Most people I know don't have private healthcare. The vast majority of mothers in the North go NHS. The nHS is ridiculously under resourced , but one of the reasons that waiting lists are so long is because it's free, and therefore overused by many . 300000 on Waiting lists for example does not account for duplicated names and many on waiting lists are not seriously ill . Where the NHS falls down is that free healthcare results in too much resource being put into fairly trivial illness , as opposed to those that really need it. With increased resources and disincentives to overuse , it could improve dramatically. Those that advocate more private health care in the North should remember that their taxes pay to educate medical and nursing staff, a strong private sector removes these staff from the NHS, undermining it further, and those that can't afford private healthcare end up shafted.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 10:22:40 AM
Quote from: Main Street on January 28, 2021, 08:43:25 PM
I thought most of you Cavanites were hovering on the  poverty line and entitled to medical cards :P  Do you think it's beyond the boundaries of  any pre-border poll negotiations to come up with some structure that would allow mainly NI residents continue to use their medical services at their (alleged) high current standards?

Everything is possible in theory but in practice, there's no way that I and people like me are going to tolerate spending three grand a year on family health insurance while people twenty miles away and in similar financial circumstances are getting free healthcare on the public dime from the same government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 10:30:09 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 28, 2021, 09:15:24 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 28, 2021, 04:04:04 PM
If you want treatment for anything in the North you're going private. The vast majority of my friends have all went private to have children.

Sorry trailer , that just isn't correct and insulting to those who work in the nhS. The NHS isn't perfect as JC has highlighted but it's available to everyone regardless of social class. Most people I know don't have private healthcare. The vast majority of mothers in the North go NHS. The nHS is ridiculously under resourced , but one of the reasons that waiting lists are so long is because it's free, and therefore overused by many . 300000 on Waiting lists for example does not account for duplicated names and many on waiting lists are not seriously ill . Where the NHS falls down is that free healthcare results in too much resource being put into fairly trivial illness , as opposed to those that really need it. With increased resources and disincentives to overuse , it could improve dramatically. Those that advocate more private health care in the North should remember that their taxes pay to educate medical and nursing staff, a strong private sector removes these staff from the NHS, undermining it further, and those that can't afford private healthcare end up shafted.

Well said, people in the O6 should look down at the free state and what a shambolic health service really looks like. If you want to be forking out 7/8k on top of your taxes a year to insure you and your family have a good chance of getting proper healthcare in the event of it.....

Be careful what you wish for.

One of the major selling points for the south in reunification should be the complete reform of their HSE. FFG have destroyed public health for their citizens in order to satisfy the interests of the private interests they serve, much like they have done with the housing crisis where they have screwed the young generation in order to service vulture funds and private interests to hover up residential supplies, move it to the rental market and then send it out of control.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 10:30:09 AM
One of the major selling points for the south in reunification should be the complete reform of their HSE. FFG have destroyed public health for their citizens in order to satisfy the interests of the private interests they serve, much like they have done with the housing crisis where they have screwed the young generation in order to service vulture funds and private interests to hover up residential supplies, move it to the rental market and then send it out of control.

Proper reform of the HSE would entail tens of thousands of redundancies and would be a political calamity for whatever party even suggests it, let alone implements it. Representatives of all the political parties sit on HSE and hospital boards up and down the country and not one will ever dare propose such reform.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 29, 2021, 11:10:28 AM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 10:22:40 AM
Quote from: Main Street on January 28, 2021, 08:43:25 PM
I thought most of you Cavanites were hovering on the  poverty line and entitled to medical cards :P  Do you think it's beyond the boundaries of  any pre-border poll negotiations to come up with some structure that would allow mainly NI residents continue to use their medical services at their (alleged) high current standards?

Everything is possible in theory but in practice, there's no way that I and people like me are going to tolerate spending three grand a year on family health insurance while people twenty miles away and in similar financial circumstances are getting free healthcare on the public dime from the same government.

You don't have to pay three grand on health insurance, you can get public care of comparable standard or superior standard to what is available in NI for less than that.

People in NI pay a lot in National Insurance, they get free health care but do pay for it. A person on median salary in NI has €1000 more in deductions than someone in the ROI on that salary.. In a UI they could simply introduce a scheme where you would continue to pay a similar amount and get free public health care. Of course a lot of people a the lower end would get medical cards and not need to pay this.

Going back to 6th Sam's point about overuse, I would be inclined to retain a modest charge for things, whether GPs or prescriptions, which exist in many European countries. People do not value that which is free. Of course these charges could be waived for actual ill people who have to use services frequently.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 11:13:50 AM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 10:30:09 AM
One of the major selling points for the south in reunification should be the complete reform of their HSE. FFG have destroyed public health for their citizens in order to satisfy the interests of the private interests they serve, much like they have done with the housing crisis where they have screwed the young generation in order to service vulture funds and private interests to hover up residential supplies, move it to the rental market and then send it out of control.

Proper reform of the HSE would entail tens of thousands of redundancies and would be a political calamity for whatever party even suggests it, let alone implements it. Representatives of all the political parties sit on HSE and hospital boards up and down the country and not one will ever dare propose such reform.

There's only two parties in the free state who have ever had the capacity to reform the health service, they continue to make an even bigger shambles of it with every tenure.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 29, 2021, 11:10:28 AM

You don't have to pay three grand on health insurance, you can get public care of comparable or superior standard to what is available in NI for less than that.


Sure I know that, we all do, but if I rely on public care and end up needing say "non-urgent" cancer treatment or heart surgery, I'll have to wait my turn on a public waiting list. And I might die waiting, as some of my neighbours have.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 11:20:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 11:13:50 AM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 10:30:09 AM
One of the major selling points for the south in reunification should be the complete reform of their HSE. FFG have destroyed public health for their citizens in order to satisfy the interests of the private interests they serve, much like they have done with the housing crisis where they have screwed the young generation in order to service vulture funds and private interests to hover up residential supplies, move it to the rental market and then send it out of control.

Proper reform of the HSE would entail tens of thousands of redundancies and would be a political calamity for whatever party even suggests it, let alone implements it. Representatives of all the political parties sit on HSE and hospital boards up and down the country and not one will ever dare propose such reform.

There's only two parties in the free state who have ever had the capacity to reform the health service, they continue to make an even bigger shambles of it with every tenure.

If either of them were foolish enough to even mention it this afternoon as a possibility, the Shinners would eviscerate them for it. That's why it was a total non-issue in last year's general election and will be the same in the next election.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 11:20:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 11:13:50 AM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 10:30:09 AM
One of the major selling points for the south in reunification should be the complete reform of their HSE. FFG have destroyed public health for their citizens in order to satisfy the interests of the private interests they serve, much like they have done with the housing crisis where they have screwed the young generation in order to service vulture funds and private interests to hover up residential supplies, move it to the rental market and then send it out of control.

Proper reform of the HSE would entail tens of thousands of redundancies and would be a political calamity for whatever party even suggests it, let alone implements it. Representatives of all the political parties sit on HSE and hospital boards up and down the country and not one will ever dare propose such reform.

There's only two parties in the free state who have ever had the capacity to reform the health service, they continue to make an even bigger shambles of it with every tenure.

If either of them were foolish enough to even mention it this afternoon as a possibility, the Shinners would eviscerate them for it. That's why it was a total non-issue in last year's general election and will be the same in the next election.

Once again, you are talking in hypotheticals - not facts.

SF have been very vocal about the need for healthcare reform in the 26 and a move to implementing a health care system much more like the NHS.

Everytime we have a narrative about the incompetence and sleaze of FFG you deflect onto some unknown hypothetical about SF - it's utterly bizarre.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 29, 2021, 11:37:29 AM
I wonder if our 2 geniuses could
1 - give us an outline of their perfect public health service
2 - the steps to achieve this
3 - their expertise and knowledge of reforming large public service bodies.

I had cancer some years ago. Had an operation and follow up treatments etc all done free of charge (apart from public hospital over night €75) in a public Hospital in the 26 Counties. No delays.

Another relation had suspicions, went to GP, was seen in a public Hospital 10 days later as a public patient and the cancer was sorted out.
By the way the cheapest Private Hospital Insurance cover is around €730 per adult.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 29, 2021, 11:37:29 AM
I wonder if our 2 geniuses could
1 - give us an outline of their perfect public health service
2 - the steps to achieve this
3 - their expertise and knowledge of reforming large public service bodies.

I had cancer some years ago. Had an operation and follow up treatments etc all done free of charge (apart from public hospital over night €75) in a public Hospital in the 26 Counties. No delays.

Another relation had suspicions, went to GP, was seen in a public Hospital 10 days later as a public patient and the cancer was sorted out.
By the way the cheapest Private Hospital Insurance cover is around €730 per adult.

Universal healthcare, not the FFG where proper healthcare is only an entitlement to the well off.

The arrogance of your last line tells us a lot.

By the way the cheapest Private Hospital Insurance cover is around €730 per adult.

What does the cheapest line of healthcare entitle you to? For someone on the breadline, raising kids, trying to get a home, paying extortionate rent, paying a mortgage, bills - trying to provide the basics for their families - to keep them fed and put a roof over their heads - €730 a year is not possible - for the cheapest form of private healthcare.

It's the arrogance of that line which tells you of how you view people less well off than you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 29, 2021, 11:52:19 AM
The Government seems to be playing a long game. Paying for Erasmus for NI students post Brexit is about soft power and changing the perception of the South among young Unionists.
The demographics in the North show that the unionist majority is at older ages only. Timing is the most important aspect because it has to be done properly. There is no point in doing it now.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:06:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 11:37:03 AM
[
Once again, you are talking in hypotheticals - not facts.

SF have been very vocal about the need for healthcare reform in the 26 and a move to implementing a health care system much more like the NHS.

Everytime we have a narrative about the incompetence and sleaze of FFG you deflect onto some unknown hypothetical about SF - it's utterly bizarre.

The utter irony of you complaining about hypotheticals. SF have never once mentioned that public service redundancies are on the cards if healthcare reform here is to become a reality.

I am as angry as you are about FF & FG incompetence and sleaze. But SF is an embedded part of the same rotten cartel.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 29, 2021, 12:09:12 PM
Lidl bringing all their stuff for 6 Cos outlets through the 26.
Amazon opening a Dublin depot for Irish orders.
If the 6 Cos Executive was any use they'd be getting all sorts of  online outfits and the rest to open a facility in the North as they have unfettered access to the EU and GB.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:13:10 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:06:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 11:37:03 AM
[
Once again, you are talking in hypotheticals - not facts.

SF have been very vocal about the need for healthcare reform in the 26 and a move to implementing a health care system much more like the NHS.

Everytime we have a narrative about the incompetence and sleaze of FFG you deflect onto some unknown hypothetical about SF - it's utterly bizarre.

The utter irony of you complaining about hypotheticals. SF have never once mentioned that public service redundancies are on the cards if healthcare reform here is to become a reality.

I am as angry as you are about FF & FG incompetence and sleaze. But SF is an embedded part of the same rotten cartel.

Once again you are focusing on things you don't know.

SF have never once had power, you do not know what they would or would not do. They have been very critical of the health service in the 26, they have been very clear that they plan to abolish the two tier health service favoured by FFG and they have been very clear on wanting to shift to a universal healthcare system. They should be judged when they have actual power to do so. It's going to come but you seem to be determined to have FFG remain in power due to prejudiced ideas you have based on no logics.

What you are saying here just defies any semblance of intelligence.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 29, 2021, 12:09:12 PM

If the 6 Cos Executive was any use they'd be getting all sorts of  online outfits and the rest to open a facility in the North as they have unfettered access to the EU and GB.

Another free stater utterly ignorant on the powers and scope of the executive.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on January 29, 2021, 12:14:05 PM
At least the discussion is starting!?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:23:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:13:10 PM

What you are saying here just defies any semblance of intelligence.

Give over. You were crying here on Monday or Tuesday about someone calling you a cretin. Now you're at the same yourself. If you can't manage to debate respectfully, I'm out.

Your choice.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:23:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:13:10 PM

What you are saying here just defies any semblance of intelligence.

Give over. You were crying here on Monday or Tuesday about someone calling you a cretin. Now you're at the same yourself. If you can't manage to debate respectfully, I'm out.

Your choice.

I play the ball, not the man. I'm not insulting you.

I'm calling out the absolute nonsense of what you're saying.

You are defending FFG incompetence and corruption by accusing an opposition party of being responsible. It's utterly, utterly absurd and has no logical basis whatsoever. You can't blame FFG policies on an opposition party who have no role in enacting those policies. It's idiotic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:36:58 PM

I play the ball, not the man. I'm not insulting you.

I'm calling out the absolute nonsense of what you're saying.

You are defending FFG incompetence and corruption by accusing an opposition party of being responsible. It's utterly, utterly absurd and has no logical basis whatsoever. You can't blame FFG policies on an opposition party who have no role in enacting those policies. It's idiotic.

No, you're lying.

This is what I said.

QuoteI am as angry as you are about FF & FG incompetence and sleaze. But SF is an embedded part of the same rotten cartel.

I have not defended FF or FG anywhere here. (And give up on the "FFG" nonsense. There's no such entity.)

It's your choice whether or not we continue debating. But if you continue both lying and making inflammatory comments, I'm out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:36:58 PM

I play the ball, not the man. I'm not insulting you.

I'm calling out the absolute nonsense of what you're saying.

You are defending FFG incompetence and corruption by accusing an opposition party of being responsible. It's utterly, utterly absurd and has no logical basis whatsoever. You can't blame FFG policies on an opposition party who have no role in enacting those policies. It's idiotic.

No, you're lying.

This is what I said.

QuoteI am as angry as you are about FF & FG incompetence and sleaze. But SF is an embedded part of the same rotten cartel.

I have not defended FF or FG anywhere here. (And give up on the "FFG" nonsense. There's no such entity.)

It's your choice whether or not we continue debating. But if you continue both lying and making inflammatory comments, I'm out.

You have defended them as you choose to put the blame of their policies on a party who have never been in power. It's an idiotic line. How can you blame the health service failings on a party who has never been in power. A few pages back you tried to blame the bank bailout on a party who had 4 TDs out of 166. Again utterly idiotic.

Do you mind telling us who you vote for so? As you seem to lay the blame of every FFG govt catastrophe at the door of a party who have never been in govt.

There is a FFG entity, one that is very cosily agreeing on all policy of late.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:51:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:36:58 PM

I play the ball, not the man. I'm not insulting you.

I'm calling out the absolute nonsense of what you're saying.

You are defending FFG incompetence and corruption by accusing an opposition party of being responsible. It's utterly, utterly absurd and has no logical basis whatsoever. You can't blame FFG policies on an opposition party who have no role in enacting those policies. It's idiotic.

No, you're lying.

This is what I said.

QuoteI am as angry as you are about FF & FG incompetence and sleaze. But SF is an embedded part of the same rotten cartel.

I have not defended FF or FG anywhere here. (And give up on the "FFG" nonsense. There's no such entity.)

It's your choice whether or not we continue debating. But if you continue both lying and making inflammatory comments, I'm out.

You have defended them as you choose to put the blame of their policies on a party who have never been in power. It's an idiotic line. How can you blame the health service failings on a party who has never been in power. A few pages back you tried to blame the bank bailout on a party who had 4 TDs out of 166. Again utterly idiotic.

Do you mind telling us who you vote for so? As you seem to lay the blame of every FFG govt catastrophe at the door of a party who have never been in govt.

I'll answer your questions whenever you stop being aggressive and confrontational. Until then, I'm out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:54:27 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:51:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:36:58 PM

I play the ball, not the man. I'm not insulting you.

I'm calling out the absolute nonsense of what you're saying.

You are defending FFG incompetence and corruption by accusing an opposition party of being responsible. It's utterly, utterly absurd and has no logical basis whatsoever. You can't blame FFG policies on an opposition party who have no role in enacting those policies. It's idiotic.

No, you're lying.

This is what I said.

QuoteI am as angry as you are about FF & FG incompetence and sleaze. But SF is an embedded part of the same rotten cartel.

I have not defended FF or FG anywhere here. (And give up on the "FFG" nonsense. There's no such entity.)

It's your choice whether or not we continue debating. But if you continue both lying and making inflammatory comments, I'm out.

You have defended them as you choose to put the blame of their policies on a party who have never been in power. It's an idiotic line. How can you blame the health service failings on a party who has never been in power. A few pages back you tried to blame the bank bailout on a party who had 4 TDs out of 166. Again utterly idiotic.

Do you mind telling us who you vote for so? As you seem to lay the blame of every FFG govt catastrophe at the door of a party who have never been in govt.

I'll answer your questions whenever you stop being aggressive and confrontational. Until then, I'm out.

You've had chances to answer those questions and you haven't liked been challenged on the nonsense you've put forward so do as you please.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:54:27 PM
You've had chances to answer those questions and you haven't liked been challenged on the nonsense you've put forward so do as you please.

That I will.

Note, I won't be going down the road of either insulting you or being aggressive or confrontational to you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:14:21 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:54:27 PM
You've had chances to answer those questions and you haven't liked been challenged on the nonsense you've put forward so do as you please.

That I will.

Note, I won't be going down the road of either insulting you or being aggressive or confrontational to you.

I haven't insulted you at all.

You have taken offence to me calling your nonsense and the complete lack of logic to what you've posted and thrown a little bit of strop so do as you please.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:14:21 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:54:27 PM
You've had chances to answer those questions and you haven't liked been challenged on the nonsense you've put forward so do as you please.

That I will.

Note, I won't be going down the road of either insulting you or being aggressive or confrontational to you.

I haven't insulted you at all.

You have taken offence to me calling your nonsense and the complete lack of logic to what you've posted and thrown a little bit of strop so do as you please.

You have been both aggressive and confrontational.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:14:21 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 12:54:27 PM
You've had chances to answer those questions and you haven't liked been challenged on the nonsense you've put forward so do as you please.

That I will.

Note, I won't be going down the road of either insulting you or being aggressive or confrontational to you.

I haven't insulted you at all.

You have taken offence to me calling your nonsense and the complete lack of logic to what you've posted and thrown a little bit of strop so do as you please.

You have been both aggressive and confrontational.

You have talked absolute nonsense and then got overly sensitive when that has been relayed to you. It's not my problem you can't stand behind the absurdity of your claims.

It's obvious you wish to have license to spout nonsense and have it go unchallenged.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 01:32:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 01:21:04 PM
You have been both aggressive and confrontational.

You have talked absolute nonsense and then got overly sensitive when that has been relayed to you. It's not my problem you can't stand behind the absurdity of your claims.

It's obvious you wish to have license to spout nonsense and have it go unchallenged.

QED.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:33:16 PM
Grand so.

Maybe try and bring some sensible arguments forward next time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:33:16 PM
Grand so.

Maybe try and bring some sensible arguments forward next time.
Play it whatever way you like. I actually agree with most or all of what you've written on the Covid thread but why would I bother supporting you there after your behaviour here?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:33:16 PM
Grand so.

Maybe try and bring some sensible arguments forward next time.
Play it whatever way you like. I actually agree with most or all of what you've written on the Covid thread but why would I bother supporting you there after your behaviour here?

I don't care what you do or don't agree with. What you were saying on this thread was complete nonsense, I disputed it and you got annoyed that your view was challenged and have gone off on a huff because you know as well as I do it's down to your own prejudices.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: five points on January 29, 2021, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:33:16 PM
Grand so.

Maybe try and bring some sensible arguments forward next time.
Play it whatever way you like. I actually agree with most or all of what you've written on the Covid thread but why would I bother supporting you there after your behaviour here?

I don't care what you do or don't agree with. What you were saying on this thread was complete nonsense, I disputed it and you got annoyed that your view was challenged and have gone off on a huff because you know as well as I do it's down to your own prejudices.

As I say, play it whatever way you like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 29, 2021, 02:32:40 PM
Meanwhile back to a United Ireland....
Seems to be a different Unionist ever day attacking the "NI protocol" .
Trying to deflect the camp followers from realisong who were the root cause of it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on January 29, 2021, 02:47:51 PM
They backed Brexit. They got Brexit. They don't like Brexit. Starting to whip up their scum, as they have always done since their Planter thief ancestors landed. The result will be the murder of Irish people. But they cannot turn the tide, it's endgame for them, and I think they realise that now.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on January 29, 2021, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 29, 2021, 02:32:40 PM
Meanwhile back to a United Ireland....
Seems to be a different Unionist ever day attacking the "NI protocol" .
Trying to deflect the camp followers from realisong who were the root cause of it.

Although there's gonna be a real day of reckoning for traders at the end of March. The paperwork involved is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: five points on January 29, 2021, 03:02:01 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 29, 2021, 02:55:29 PM
Although there's gonna be a real day of reckoning for traders at the end of March. The paperwork involved is just ridiculous.

Designed to fail, by the looks of things.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 29, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 29, 2021, 02:47:51 PM
They backed Brexit. They got Brexit. They don't like Brexit. Starting to whip up their scum, as they have always done since their Planter thief ancestors landed. The result will be the murder of Irish people. But they cannot turn the tide, it's endgame for them, and I think they realise that now.

I note a letter from Mike Nesbitt in yesterday's Newsletter saying "I told you so".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 29, 2021, 02:47:51 PM
They backed Brexit. They got Brexit. They don't like Brexit. Starting to whip up their scum, as they have always done since their Planter thief ancestors landed. The result will be the murder of Irish people. But they cannot turn the tide, it's endgame for them, and I think they realise that now.

Agreed, but look who they're blaming for the NI protocol and it isn't themselves (The DUP and to a lesser extent the UUP whose holes are badly splintered on this at the minute).

They're trying to imply that it was Alliance/SDLP/Sinn Fein are the source of their woes for insisting on the NI Protocol when the DUP in particular had the much softer May deal on the table but it wasn't a hard enough Brexit for them or their mates in the ERG they were cosying up to at the time.

The NI protocol was always meant to be a halfway house to prevent the need for a border on the island of Ireland, something the DUP say they didn't want either but lets be honest, we all know they did to secure their wee fiefdom..



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 29, 2021, 03:34:06 PM
I suppose the Alliance Offices will be first to be burned by the scum?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eire90 on January 29, 2021, 04:05:30 PM
They  voted for brexit now they moan and blame republicans and nationalists they are also terrified of the tories you never see them criticising their precious tories.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eire90 on January 29, 2021, 04:14:05 PM
what difference would an united ireland make about ordering from amazon
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 29, 2021, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: Eire90 on January 29, 2021, 04:05:30 PM
They  voted for brexit now they moan and blame republicans and nationalists they are also terrified of the tories you never see them criticising their precious tories.

Are these the same Tories that chucked them on the shitheap when they had served their purpose? Then again, what's the alternative to criticising the Tories? Siding with SF? Building for a United Ireland? Yeah, that could happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on January 29, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

From
A unionist perspective he could be very smart. Unionists best chance of short term survival is to merge DUP/UUP, which will
Keep a unionist party in power for another while. Unionists parties  never seem to play the long game, which would be to try and retain Britishness in an inevitable All-Island structure for future generations. instead they'll do anything to avoid a United ireland during their own lifetime at the expense of sorting out a deal for their descendants. There are strong economic arguments for an All-island solution that even moderate unionists and reluctant "freestaters " could back . These need to be quantified, and as NI inevitably gets totally unviable, there will be less resistance from pragmatic unionists. What needs to be remembered however that when unionist politics are under pressure , sectarian foot soldiers appear , targetting innocent Catholics . A 32 county Ireland is potentially very close. If we feed the unionist bear with economic arguments, there'll be little resistance, but if we poke the bear with triumphalism , there could be a whole new generation of victims.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on January 29, 2021, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 29, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

From
A unionist perspective he could be very smart. Unionists best chance of short term survival is to merge DUP/UUP, which will
Keep a unionist party in power for another while. Unionists parties  never seem to play the long game, which would be to try and retain Britishness in an inevitable All-Island structure for future generations. instead they'll do anything to avoid a United ireland during their own lifetime at the expense of sorting out a deal for their descendants. There are strong economic arguments for an All-island solution that even moderate unionists and reluctant "freestaters " could back . These need to be quantified, and as NI inevitably gets totally unviable, there will be less resistance from pragmatic unionists. What needs to be remembered however that when unionist politics are under pressure , sectarian foot soldiers appear , targetting innocent Catholics . A 32 county Ireland is potentially very close. If we feed the unionist bear with economic arguments, there'll be little resistance, but if we poke the bear with triumphalism , there could be a whole new generation of victims.

+1 ... God forbid another innocent person loses their life because of unionist sabre rattling or nationalist triumphalism.  In this new island, all should be on the table for discussion, the good and bad of north and south, and the end product should be something better for all on the island, not one or the other.  Are we up for having a new national flag or anthem?  Symbolism will play a major part in whatever new island emerges.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 29, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

From
A unionist perspective he could be very smart. Unionists best chance of short term survival is to merge DUP/UUP, which will
Keep a unionist party in power for another while. Unionists parties  never seem to play the long game, which would be to try and retain Britishness in an inevitable All-Island structure for future generations. instead they'll do anything to avoid a United ireland during their own lifetime at the expense of sorting out a deal for their descendants. There are strong economic arguments for an All-island solution that even moderate unionists and reluctant "freestaters " could back . These need to be quantified, and as NI inevitably gets totally unviable, there will be less resistance from pragmatic unionists. What needs to be remembered however that when unionist politics are under pressure , sectarian foot soldiers appear , targetting innocent Catholics . A 32 county Ireland is potentially very close. If we feed the unionist bear with economic arguments, there'll be little resistance, but if we poke the bear with triumphalism , there could be a whole new generation of victims.

Is there such a thing as a guilty Catholic?

As I've said before - it's a sectarian little statelet.

Unionists, if you look back to the 1920's, 1960's and 1990's, will never change.  That's the way it is - when you strip all back.

Every July, it's the same - an anti-Irish hatefest which passes as culture. 

If anything unionists can be won over with discussions and debates, then they don't understand the history of the 6 counties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 29, 2021, 07:01:41 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on January 29, 2021, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 29, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

From
A unionist perspective he could be very smart. Unionists best chance of short term survival is to merge DUP/UUP, which will
Keep a unionist party in power for another while. Unionists parties  never seem to play the long game, which would be to try and retain Britishness in an inevitable All-Island structure for future generations. instead they'll do anything to avoid a United ireland during their own lifetime at the expense of sorting out a deal for their descendants. There are strong economic arguments for an All-island solution that even moderate unionists and reluctant "freestaters " could back . These need to be quantified, and as NI inevitably gets totally unviable, there will be less resistance from pragmatic unionists. What needs to be remembered however that when unionist politics are under pressure , sectarian foot soldiers appear , targetting innocent Catholics . A 32 county Ireland is potentially very close. If we feed the unionist bear with economic arguments, there'll be little resistance, but if we poke the bear with triumphalism , there could be a whole new generation of victims.

+1 ... God forbid another innocent person loses their life because of unionist sabre rattling or nationalist triumphalism.  In this new island, all should be on the table for discussion, the good and bad of north and south, and the end product should be something better for all on the island, not one or the other.  Are we up for having a new national flag or anthem?  Symbolism will play a major part in whatever new island emerges.

Flag/anthem - will unionists recognise them? Very few will. Do nationalists recognise the flag/anthem of Norn Iron? Very few do, because it's a statelet they want no part of. Unionists will be the same way with regards to a UI.

If they were reluctantly dragged into a UÍ, you can sure that every ounce of Ireland and Irishness will be gnawed away at. Music, language, sport, culture, emblems etc. You seen how unionists reacted to city hall flag or blocked marches, so called erosion of their Protestant culture. Expect the same reactions in a UI by nationalists if similar happened.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on January 29, 2021, 07:04:03 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 29, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

From
A unionist perspective he could be very smart. Unionists best chance of short term survival is to merge DUP/UUP, which will
Keep a unionist party in power for another while. Unionists parties  never seem to play the long game, which would be to try and retain Britishness in an inevitable All-Island structure for future generations. instead they'll do anything to avoid a United ireland during their own lifetime at the expense of sorting out a deal for their descendants. There are strong economic arguments for an All-island solution that even moderate unionists and reluctant "freestaters " could back . These need to be quantified, and as NI inevitably gets totally unviable, there will be less resistance from pragmatic unionists. What needs to be remembered however that when unionist politics are under pressure , sectarian foot soldiers appear , targetting innocent Catholics . A 32 county Ireland is potentially very close. If we feed the unionist bear with economic arguments, there'll be little resistance, but if we poke the bear with triumphalism , there could be a whole new generation of victims.

Is there such a thing as a guilty Catholic?

As I've said before - it's a sectarian little statelet.

Unionists, if you look back to the 1920's, 1960's and 1990's, will never change.  That's the way it is - when you strip all back.

Every July, it's the same - an anti-Irish hatefest which passes as culture. 

If anything unionists can be won over with discussions and debates, then they don't understand the history of the 6 counties.
So what's your solution Marty?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on January 29, 2021, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 29, 2021, 07:01:41 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on January 29, 2021, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 29, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

From
A unionist perspective he could be very smart. Unionists best chance of short term survival is to merge DUP/UUP, which will
Keep a unionist party in power for another while. Unionists parties  never seem to play the long game, which would be to try and retain Britishness in an inevitable All-Island structure for future generations. instead they'll do anything to avoid a United ireland during their own lifetime at the expense of sorting out a deal for their descendants. There are strong economic arguments for an All-island solution that even moderate unionists and reluctant "freestaters " could back . These need to be quantified, and as NI inevitably gets totally unviable, there will be less resistance from pragmatic unionists. What needs to be remembered however that when unionist politics are under pressure , sectarian foot soldiers appear , targetting innocent Catholics . A 32 county Ireland is potentially very close. If we feed the unionist bear with economic arguments, there'll be little resistance, but if we poke the bear with triumphalism , there could be a whole new generation of victims.

+1 ... God forbid another innocent person loses their life because of unionist sabre rattling or nationalist triumphalism.  In this new island, all should be on the table for discussion, the good and bad of north and south, and the end product should be something better for all on the island, not one or the other.  Are we up for having a new national flag or anthem?  Symbolism will play a major part in whatever new island emerges.

Flag/anthem - will unionists recognise them? Very few will. Do nationalists recognise the flag/anthem of Norn Iron? Very few do, because it's a statelet they want no part of. Unionists will be the same way with regards to a UI.

If they were reluctantly dragged into a UÍ, you can sure that every ounce of Ireland and Irishness will be gnawed away at. Music, language, sport, culture, emblems etc. You seen how unionists reacted to city hall flag or blocked marches, so called erosion of their Protestant culture. Expect the same reactions in a UI by nationalists if similar happened.
What is this please?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 29, 2021, 11:35:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 29, 2021, 07:01:41 PM
Flag/anthem - will unionists recognise them? Very few will. Do nationalists recognise the flag/anthem of Norn Iron? Very few do, because it's a statelet they want no part of. Unionists will be the same way with regards to a UI.

If they were reluctantly dragged into a UÍ, you can sure that every ounce of Ireland and Irishness will be gnawed away at. Music, language, sport, culture, emblems etc. You seen how unionists reacted to city hall flag or blocked marches, so called erosion of their Protestant culture. Expect the same reactions in a UI by nationalists if similar happened.

NI is a colony whose political status was achieved by conquest, Ireland will be normal democratic society brought about by agreement. I'm not saying that unionists won't do as you say, but they would have zero justification and we should not dignify the idea that there is some symmetry here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on January 29, 2021, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 29, 2021, 11:35:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 29, 2021, 07:01:41 PM
Flag/anthem - will unionists recognise them? Very few will. Do nationalists recognise the flag/anthem of Norn Iron? Very few do, because it's a statelet they want no part of. Unionists will be the same way with regards to a UI.

If they were reluctantly dragged into a UÍ, you can sure that every ounce of Ireland and Irishness will be gnawed away at. Music, language, sport, culture, emblems etc. You seen how unionists reacted to city hall flag or blocked marches, so called erosion of their Protestant culture. Expect the same reactions in a UI by nationalists if similar happened.

NI is a colony whose political status was achieved by conquest, Ireland will be normal democratic society brought about by agreement. I'm not saying that unionists won't do as you say, but they would have zero justification and we should not dignify the idea that there is some symmetry here.
What is this - please enlighten us.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 12:10:59 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 29, 2021, 11:35:08 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 29, 2021, 07:01:41 PM
Flag/anthem - will unionists recognise them? Very few will. Do nationalists recognise the flag/anthem of Norn Iron? Very few do, because it's a statelet they want no part of. Unionists will be the same way with regards to a UI.

If they were reluctantly dragged into a UÍ, you can sure that every ounce of Ireland and Irishness will be gnawed away at. Music, language, sport, culture, emblems etc. You seen how unionists reacted to city hall flag or blocked marches, so called erosion of their Protestant culture. Expect the same reactions in a UI by nationalists if similar happened.

NI is a colony whose political status was achieved by conquest, Ireland will be normal democratic society brought about by agreement. I'm not saying that unionists won't do as you say, but they would have zero justification and we should not dignify the idea that there is some symmetry here.

I'm not saying theres symmetry, but I can envisage unionists wanting to be recognised in a new Ireland. Not just forced to accept all things Irish.

They'll make the connection that ...well you nationalists kicked up a fuss in NI for decades until compromises were made, unionist emblems removed, our culture eroded etc, and now we are under your rule, and we have to put up with shamrocks, harps, tri-colours and Irish language? What about our identity? Where's our union flag on Leinster House? Where's the Ulster Scots on the Irish passport? Why isn't Carson on the Euro coins?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 12:13:31 AM
Quote from: restorepride on January 29, 2021, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 29, 2021, 07:01:41 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on January 29, 2021, 05:58:48 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 29, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

From
A unionist perspective he could be very smart. Unionists best chance of short term survival is to merge DUP/UUP, which will
Keep a unionist party in power for another while. Unionists parties  never seem to play the long game, which would be to try and retain Britishness in an inevitable All-Island structure for future generations. instead they'll do anything to avoid a United ireland during their own lifetime at the expense of sorting out a deal for their descendants. There are strong economic arguments for an All-island solution that even moderate unionists and reluctant "freestaters " could back . These need to be quantified, and as NI inevitably gets totally unviable, there will be less resistance from pragmatic unionists. What needs to be remembered however that when unionist politics are under pressure , sectarian foot soldiers appear , targetting innocent Catholics . A 32 county Ireland is potentially very close. If we feed the unionist bear with economic arguments, there'll be little resistance, but if we poke the bear with triumphalism , there could be a whole new generation of victims.

+1 ... God forbid another innocent person loses their life because of unionist sabre rattling or nationalist triumphalism.  In this new island, all should be on the table for discussion, the good and bad of north and south, and the end product should be something better for all on the island, not one or the other.  Are we up for having a new national flag or anthem?  Symbolism will play a major part in whatever new island emerges.

Flag/anthem - will unionists recognise them? Very few will. Do nationalists recognise the flag/anthem of Norn Iron? Very few do, because it's a statelet they want no part of. Unionists will be the same way with regards to a UI.

If they were reluctantly dragged into a UÍ, you can sure that every ounce of Ireland and Irishness will be gnawed away at. Music, language, sport, culture, emblems etc. You seen how unionists reacted to city hall flag or blocked marches, so called erosion of their Protestant culture. Expect the same reactions in a UI by nationalists if similar happened.
What is this please?

It flies from a flag pole.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on January 30, 2021, 01:04:42 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 12:10:59 AM
They'll make the connection that ...well you nationalists kicked up a fuss in NI for decades until compromises were made, unionist emblems removed, our culture eroded etc, and now we are under your rule, and we have to put up with shamrocks, harps, tri-colours and Irish language? What about our identity? Where's our union flag on Leinster House? Where's the Ulster Scots on the Irish passport? Why isn't Carson on the Euro coins?

Shamrocks were always distributed to the RUC. People will generally will speak English. The flag may be changed.
Unionists aren't the only group you know, there are hundreds of thousands of Poles here, should we put Kosciuszko on our coins?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on January 30, 2021, 01:23:41 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

Submarine Steve is a joke. Only in the job 10 seconds and bent over and took it in the ass from the UDA over standing in North Belfast. He'll be gone soon enough for Doug 'I'm not sectarian' Beattie , Military Cross hero for  killing people in Iran and Afghanistan. Unionism is fucked. It's just a matter now of counting the number of indigenous Irish dead until they realise that, unfortunately.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on January 30, 2021, 08:59:35 AM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 01:23:41 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 29, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: marty34 on January 29, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
As I stated a few time, I don't know why the UUP aren't going to town on the DUP over this.

Because Submariner Steve is as think as shit and rather than try and get the middle ground back from Alliance he's trying to outdo the DUP in being so loyal and never never never on anything and he's never going to succeed there........

Submarine Steve is a joke. Only in the job 10 seconds and bent over and took it in the ass from the UDA over standing in North Belfast. He'll be gone soon enough for Doug 'I'm not sectarian' Beattie , Military Cross hero for  killing people in Iran and Afghanistan. Unionism is fucked. It's just a matter now of counting the number of indigenous Irish dead until they realise that, unfortunately.
You know NI unionists are 'indigenous' as well right?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 30, 2021, 09:38:55 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 30, 2021, 01:04:42 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 12:10:59 AM
They'll make the connection that ...well you nationalists kicked up a fuss in NI for decades until compromises were made, unionist emblems removed, our culture eroded etc, and now we are under your rule, and we have to put up with shamrocks, harps, tri-colours and Irish language? What about our identity? Where's our union flag on Leinster House? Where's the Ulster Scots on the Irish passport? Why isn't Carson on the Euro coins?

Shamrocks were always distributed to the RUC. People will generally will speak English. The flag may be changed.
Unionists aren't the only group you know, there are hundreds of thousands of Poles here, should we put Kosciuszko on our coins?
There will be a new flag and anthem.
Passports will probably be tri lingual as will road signs in the 6 Co area (North East Autonomous Region?)
6 Cos natives will still have the GFA right to dual nationality (Irish and South British?)
Is Pearse or Connolly on euro coins?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 10:37:23 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 30, 2021, 09:38:55 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 30, 2021, 01:04:42 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 12:10:59 AM
They'll make the connection that ...well you nationalists kicked up a fuss in NI for decades until compromises were made, unionist emblems removed, our culture eroded etc, and now we are under your rule, and we have to put up with shamrocks, harps, tri-colours and Irish language? What about our identity? Where's our union flag on Leinster House? Where's the Ulster Scots on the Irish passport? Why isn't Carson on the Euro coins?

Shamrocks were always distributed to the RUC. People will generally will speak English. The flag may be changed.
Unionists aren't the only group you know, there are hundreds of thousands of Poles here, should we put Kosciuszko on our coins?
There will be a new flag and anthem.
Passports will probably be tri lingual as will road signs in the 6 Co area (North East Autonomous Region?)
6 Cos natives will still have the GFA right to dual nationality (Irish and South British?)
Is Pearse or Connolly on euro coins?

The GFA didn't even guarantee that. Not legitimately when it came down to it anyway. It only really became legit because of the recent De Souza case changed that.

No, they arent on the coins, but I'm just trying to think how unionists would think. Mind you, the train stations bearing their names might go. I mean it's all hypothetical but if you think all will remain as it is in a new UI, you'll be mistaken.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on January 30, 2021, 11:19:40 AM
Of course in a New Ireland somethings will have to change like the national anthem, but we also need a strong southern government who's not prepared to give away the house for the likes of Foster and Atkin. Unionism will represent 10% of the population with that number dwindling year on year plus there will be a large number will pack up and head to the motherland after the border poll. So to say the likes of train stations in Dublin or Cork need to change there name to accommodate the Jamie Bryson's of this world is nonsense. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 30, 2021, 11:31:07 AM
As I've said many times before the most likely constitutional set up will be a Confederation of 2 Home Rule areas (present 6 and 26) with a new flag and anthem. Ironically the new inclusive flag will probably have no orange bit
Internal affairs (clearly defined) will be run by slimmed down versions of Dáil and Stormont with the Confederate Government and Parliament/Congress/Assembly in overall charge.
The likes of Connolly Station and Craigavon and QE2 Bridge or whatever will keep their names.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near parity when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.

Do you really think a few sweetners is going to stop them causing the havoc that you think they will?.

if any UI is going to take place there will have to be co sponsorship of it by the british,the americans and the EU.

Im really interested to know who will be supplying the weaponry in that case.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on January 30, 2021, 03:40:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.

Do you really think a few sweetners is going to stop them causing the havoc that you think they will?.

if any UI is going to take place there will have to be co sponsorship of it by the british,the americans and the EU.

Im really interested to know who will be supplying the weaponry in that case.

That's the crux of it. Hardline unionists have been backed up by British government promoting the union. If the UK promote an all island solution, which logically they should, the unionists will have to hope that any solution secured their sense of Britishness . The union is gone , timeframe , uk financial severance package and  constitutional agreement are the only things up for debate
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 04:12:43 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.

Do you really think a few sweetners is going to stop them causing the havoc that you think they will?.

if any UI is going to take place there will have to be co sponsorship of it by the british,the americans and the EU.

Im really interested to know who will be supplying the weaponry in that case.

No it won't. But sweeteners will be proffered.

I don't think it'll matter who sponsors this UI. Unionists won't want to know.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 04:16:48 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 30, 2021, 03:40:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.

Do you really think a few sweetners is going to stop them causing the havoc that you think they will?.

if any UI is going to take place there will have to be co sponsorship of it by the british,the americans and the EU.

Im really interested to know who will be supplying the weaponry in that case.

That's the crux of it. Hardline unionists have been backed up by British government promoting the union. If the UK promote an all island solution, which logically they should, the unionists will have to hope that any solution secured their sense of Britishness . The union is gone , timeframe , uk financial severance package and  constitutional agreement are the only things up for debate

The current Brexit situation where NI is treated differently, with the Irish Sea border has pissed off unionists. They feel cut off, their sense of Britishness and attachment to the union feels threatened. You really think a guarantee of a British passport/identity in a new UI will make them happy? No chance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 30, 2021, 04:41:46 PM
The day Unionists are happy with anything that isn't the 6 Co Statelet 1922-72 .......
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 30, 2021, 04:46:07 PM
Are loyalists really going to be capable of mounting anything close to the murderous campaign of the troubles? It's going to be a gradual process, it's going to be democratic and we are a far cry from the melting pot that was the late 60s/early 70s. I expect and support concessions to protect the British identity, but other than that they can all f**k off to Scotland for all I care
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on January 30, 2021, 04:52:12 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 04:16:48 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 30, 2021, 03:40:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.

Do you really think a few sweetners is going to stop them causing the havoc that you think they will?.

if any UI is going to take place there will have to be co sponsorship of it by the british,the americans and the EU.

Im really interested to know who will be supplying the weaponry in that case.

That's the crux of it. Hardline unionists have been backed up by British government promoting the union. If the UK promote an all island solution, which logically they should, the unionists will have to hope that any solution secured their sense of Britishness . The union is gone , timeframe , uk financial severance package and  constitutional agreement are the only things up for debate

The current Brexit situation where NI is treated differently, with the Irish Sea border has pissed off unionists. They feel cut off, their sense of Britishness and attachment to the union feels threatened. You really think a guarantee of a British passport/identity in a new UI will make them happy? No chance.

There may be some sporadic violence from Loyalists but I dont think it will be much more than the dissents republicans are currently at. Previous loyalists had the backing of RUC, MI5 and British army, without that support I think it will easily contained and squashed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 04:12:43 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.

Do you really think a few sweetners is going to stop them causing the havoc that you think they will?.

if any UI is going to take place there will have to be co sponsorship of it by the british,the americans and the EU.

Im really interested to know who will be supplying the weaponry in that case.

No it won't. But sweeteners will be proffered.

I don't think it'll matter who sponsors this UI. Unionists won't want to know.

Theres a big difference between Unionists not wanting to know and  your earlier claim of loyalists creating trouble,a lot of it

Im interested to hear how loyalists would be able to lay hands on weapons to cause any level of trouble given the british would be co-guarantors of any UI agreement.

Dont forget the Irish government cracked down fairly hard on Republicans and the IRA since the foundation of the state when they threatened the existence of the state.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 05:32:33 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 04:12:43 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.

Do you really think a few sweetners is going to stop them causing the havoc that you think they will?.

if any UI is going to take place there will have to be co sponsorship of it by the british,the americans and the EU.

Im really interested to know who will be supplying the weaponry in that case.

No it won't. But sweeteners will be proffered.

I don't think it'll matter who sponsors this UI. Unionists won't want to know.

Theres a big difference between Unionists not wanting to know and  your earlier claim of loyalists creating trouble,a lot of it

Im interested to hear how loyalists would be able to lay hands on weapons to cause any level of trouble given the british would be co-guarantors of any UI agreement.

Dont forget the Irish government cracked down fairly hard on Republicans and the IRA since the foundation of the state when they threatened the existence of the state.

There can still be trouble without arms.

But I suppose you're right. Sure they'd have to pay extra duty on any German arms coming in, what with this new Irish Sea border ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 30, 2021, 05:37:42 PM
I take it Bennycake will be another "nationalist" voting to remain in the United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 30, 2021, 05:45:44 PM
The South African arms smuggled in by UVF, UDA and Ulster Resistance was split 3 ways - UDA got caught in transit, UVF presumably decommissioned most of theirs - Ulster Resistance batch never recovered
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 30, 2021, 05:46:36 PM
Quote from: pbat on January 30, 2021, 04:52:12 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 04:16:48 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 30, 2021, 03:40:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on January 30, 2021, 01:12:29 PM
Theres more foreign born people living on the island of Ireland than Unionists

Thats the reality

I know a lot of the northern cohort on here suffer from stockholm syndrome and want to give a lot more than what their actual numbers suggest

Are we really going to have 800k out of a 6m population expecting near paruty when it comes to the panaphenalia of the new state?

If there's a UI in the morning, unionists aren't just going to shrug and say "oh alright then". We will likely see another troubles period. Loyalists were armed and ready to fight 100+ years ago if there was a 32 county republic. I'd expect to see similar in the event of a successful border poll. Does anyone want to go back to that? So maybe a few concessions here and there might be something that will be needed to sweeten the deal. But I doubt even that will work.

But if you want your UI, expect trouble. And a lot of it, for maybe a long time. If you think loyalists won't kick up a stir, you're seriously naive.

Do you really think a few sweetners is going to stop them causing the havoc that you think they will?.

if any UI is going to take place there will have to be co sponsorship of it by the british,the americans and the EU.

Im really interested to know who will be supplying the weaponry in that case.

That's the crux of it. Hardline unionists have been backed up by British government promoting the union. If the UK promote an all island solution, which logically they should, the unionists will have to hope that any solution secured their sense of Britishness . The union is gone , timeframe , uk financial severance package and  constitutional agreement are the only things up for debate

The current Brexit situation where NI is treated differently, with the Irish Sea border has pissed off unionists. They feel cut off, their sense of Britishness and attachment to the union feels threatened. You really think a guarantee of a British passport/identity in a new UI will make them happy? No chance.

There may be some sporadic violence from Loyalists but I dont think it will be much more than the dissents republicans are currently at. Previous loyalists had the backing of RUC, MI5 and British army, without that support I think it will easily contained and squashed.

This is it.

Loyalists did what they did last time around because they knew they were protected and untouchable.

It's a bit like when they had their hungers strikes for prisoner rights and the screws were coming in and finding Mars bars under their pillows etc.

They will cause bother but loyalism was basically screaming and shouting until they got what they wanted without any severe repercussions - that day is sadly coming to an end for them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on January 30, 2021, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 30, 2021, 05:45:44 PM
The South African arms smuggled in by UVF, UDA and Ulster Resistance was split 3 ways - UDA got caught in transit, UVF presumably decommissioned most of theirs - Ulster Resistance batch never recovered

You mean DUP batch never recovered. They were up to their necks in it, f**king sc**bag hypocrites. Loyalists will acrobat and Irish people will be murdered, but they won't have help of Brit Establishment any more, who want rid of the scum. They will be dealt with, don't worry about that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 30, 2021, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 30, 2021, 05:45:44 PM
The South African arms smuggled in by UVF, UDA and Ulster Resistance was split 3 ways - UDA got caught in transit, UVF presumably decommissioned most of theirs - Ulster Resistance batch never recovered

You mean DUP batch never recovered. They were up to their necks in it, f**king sc**bag hypocrites. Loyalists will acrobat and Irish people will be murdered, but they won't have help of Brit Establishment any more, who want rid of the scum. They will be dealt with, don't worry about that.

That's where things have changed, will a loyalist be willing to do a 20 year stretch for killing a taig? I doubt it. This time round they are probably just likely to shout and moan and hurl a few bricks at the RUC. The days of them having immunity from the state to go around and kill Catholic civilians are gone though and that's when we find that loyalism generally stands for very little.

The political spectrum of loyalism was always the worst, while the likes of your Billy Wrights and Michael Stones were psychopaths who took life at it they were only the tip of the iceberg when it came to the evils of loyalism and unionism. Your Paisleys and William Craigs were up there with Hitler when it came to pure evil, they whipped up sectarian hatred and encouraged these psychopaths to go out and do what they did and then wiped their hands off it when the atrocities happened.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on January 30, 2021, 06:38:01 PM
Just a lot of money will have to be thrown at it. You'll get the "we won't be bought for your dirty pieces of silver... keep your Fenian blood money..." But if the UK subventions is now 14 billion pounds per annum, Dublin, Brussels with help from US will have to come up with a number that blows it out of the water, double it, and guarantee it for 20 years. Kill the we can't afford it argument at the start.
Then a few other things: in 100 years they have not managed to build one decent stadia. Disband the FAI, make Belfast and IFA the home of Irish soccer, and build a stadium there to be proud off. Tap our billionaires, many who need to redeem themselves anyway. Dublin won't like it but will have to be done.
Build the museum to Ulster sports stars the committee couldn't afford themselves - besides we all love Best, Higgins, Willie John McBride
Make a huge investment in Ulster-Scots culture - put writers of the education syllabus, champion the music - as much as they think their culture will die in a United Ireland, do a Douglas Hyde on it, like he did with Irish language, and elevate the best of the culture, something that never happened in UK.
I'm sure there's much more but money, culture, sport always a good bet.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 07:52:04 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 30, 2021, 05:37:42 PM
I take it Bennycake will be another "nationalist" voting to remain in the United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland"

And what makes you say that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 30, 2021, 08:01:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 30, 2021, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 30, 2021, 05:45:44 PM
The South African arms smuggled in by UVF, UDA and Ulster Resistance was split 3 ways - UDA got caught in transit, UVF presumably decommissioned most of theirs - Ulster Resistance batch never recovered

You mean DUP batch never recovered. They were up to their necks in it, f**king sc**bag hypocrites. Loyalists will acrobat and Irish people will be murdered, but they won't have help of Brit Establishment any more, who want rid of the scum. They will be dealt with, don't worry about that.

That's where things have changed, will a loyalist be willing to do a 20 year stretch for killing a taig? I doubt it. This time round they are probably just likely to shout and moan and hurl a few bricks at the RUC. The days of them having immunity from the state to go around and kill Catholic civilians are gone though and that's when we find that loyalism generally stands for very little.

The political spectrum of loyalism was always the worst, while the likes of your Billy Wrights and Michael Stones were psychopaths who took life at it they were only the tip of the iceberg when it came to the evils of loyalism and unionism. Your Paisleys and William Craigs were up there with Hitler when it came to pure evil, they whipped up sectarian hatred and encouraged these psychopaths to go out and do what they did and then wiped their hands off it when the atrocities happened.

I get that the Btitish government and security forces wouldn't be assisting loyalists, and Paisley/Carson etc are dead and gone, but there's other headers who will whip up support and stoke the sectarian fires. Paisley did it, Drumcree had them, fleg protests had them. It might not amount to the carnage of the troubles, but enough to cause civil unrest a la the workers strikes in the 70's or the numbers out in force all over the north during Drumcree. The likes of Jamie Bryson might not get the numbers to get elected but he'd gather enough supporters  to do serious damage and cause enough trouble to linger for years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on January 30, 2021, 09:02:24 PM
After listening to Tommy Gorman it made me think if Paisley was still alive he would have laid unionists into a united Ireland. As much as I despised the p***k he was a pragmatist and would have secured himself a comfortable place in A new Ireland. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on January 30, 2021, 10:22:40 PM
Quote from: pbat on January 30, 2021, 09:02:24 PM
After listening to Tommy Gorman it made me think if Paisley was still alive he would have laid unionists into a united Ireland. As much as I despised the p***k he was a pragmatist and would have secured himself a comfortable place in A new Ireland.
Doubt it very much.  Will the DUP totally condemn the recent threat to Leo?  That he will hang from a tree, KKK style. The drum is already beating again, with Ian Óg at it full tilt.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 31, 2021, 01:54:46 PM
As has been said by many SF and some of their camp followers are the last people needed to be pushing for a UI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Most likely they will be sent away for a 20 year stretch and we know loyalism only really liked to enforce their reign of terror when they had impunity to do so.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 02:08:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 31, 2021, 01:54:46 PM
As has been said by many SF and some of their camp followers are the last people needed to be pushing for a UI.

So you keep saying but who exactly are you? A partitionist FFG voter.

We see the utter contempt you have for working class people with every post you make. We know you support corrupt practices and measures that reinforces classism and elitism in society by the politics you espouse and parties you endorse. It is your own sate, your own establishment parties who for decades previous have done everything in their power to enforce partitionism and protect your vested interested.

I sense the worry from you recently, as a UI becomes more and more likely, you are now driving an illogical message about how SF are going to scupper it. Newsflash for you but it's the rise in popularity of SF as a political party on this island that is driving the United Ireland debate right now and you're scared about the potential of your elitist society seeing some redress.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on January 31, 2021, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

I've noticed some people comment on here about accommodating unionists in a UI, while at the same time saying if they don't like it they can piss off back to England.

As much as I'd like to think nationalists (north and south)  would be mature about a UI and not to behave like some unionists did towards Catholics in the north, I know many won't. They'll be as bad as what some unionists were.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 31, 2021, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

I've noticed some people comment on here about accommodating unionists in a UI, while at the same time saying if they don't like it they can piss off back to England.

As much as I'd like to think nationalists would be mature about a UI and not to behave like some unionists did towards Catholics in the north, I know many won't. They'll be as bad as what some unionists were.

Red hander can speak for himself but from the way I read that he was referring to violent loyalism will be wiped out if they kick up when this thing happens. I really don't think things will get any worse than the type of fleg protests we had when the City Hall debacle broke out. This time loyalists don't have the state won't be having sectarian killers on the payroll and kept on the street. They will be sent away for 20 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 31, 2021, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 31, 2021, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

I've noticed some people comment on here about accommodating unionists in a UI, while at the same time saying if they don't like it they can piss off back to England.

As much as I'd like to think nationalists (north and south)  would be mature about a UI and not to behave like some unionists did towards Catholics in the north, I know many won't. They'll be as bad as what some unionists were.
In my eyes loyalists (not all unionists) are as bad as racists, neo Nazis, fascists etc. I haven't a good thing to say about any of them, and if they disappeared of the face of the earth in the morning I wouldn't bat an eyelid. I have never in my life encountered a reasonable, rational, loyalist. For every David Ervine there's 100k c***ts. They're welcome in a United ireland and I support any measures taken to protect their British identity, but that will never be good enough. They've put up their para flags and attacked a Catholic Church this week.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on January 31, 2021, 05:21:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on January 31, 2021, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

I've noticed some people comment on here about accommodating unionists in a UI, while at the same time saying if they don't like it they can piss off back to England.

As much as I'd like to think nationalists would be mature about a UI and not to behave like some unionists did towards Catholics in the north, I know many won't. They'll be as bad as what some unionists were.

Red hander can speak for himself but from the way I read that he was referring to violent loyalism will be wiped out if they kick up when this thing happens. I really don't think things will get any worse than the type of fleg protests we had when the City Hall debacle broke out. This time loyalists don't have the state won't be having sectarian killers on the payroll and kept on the street. They will be sent away for 20 years.

This. Sorry, should have been clearer (few beers on board). Obviously didn't mean anything like 'ethnic cleansing'. The extremists won't have protection of their puppet masters and will be scooped. Unfortunately, people will be killed, like they always have been when loyalists have been whipped up by their politicians, but they are running out of road.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on January 31, 2021, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Nail on head. Some fairly unpleasant comments on this thread.  Yet it's always argued on here that bigotry is a one way street.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 31, 2021, 07:02:00 PM
Gregory could ask his colleague Ian to stop winding up the scum.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40217798.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 31, 2021, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Nail on head. Some fairly unpleasant comments on this thread.  Yet it's always argued on here that bigotry is a one way street.

I don't think anyone can argue that sectarianism is a one way street. Some of the comments on here are ridiculous. I have known many unionists and loyalists, get on well with them all . I live in area where historically sectarianism from either side wouldn't be tolerated. The "not an inch" stance from unionist politicians is not representative of Unionists I know. Very few unionists will admit to voting DUP  but most do. This is probably because they fear losing their uk link( which I respect) , and as result they vote for the strongest unionist party ( currently DUP) to keep SF from securing the largest party mantle ( which I understand) . I am unashamedly "republican/nationalist" in the sense that I have always had a strong desire for a United Ireland, even when it made no economic sense. However if that " United Ireland" marginalised those from a "unionist/loyalist" tradition , I want no part of it. Both sides have visited terrible tragedy on each other. Regardless of the rationale behind the conflict , there have been thousands of victims, and 27 years after the ceasefire , we still drag our heels regarding dealing with unresolved hurt. I think the economic and political barriers to an All Island solution are largely gone, but any attempt to move on has to be pro-active in healing the hurt on both sides.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 31, 2021, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Nail on head. Some fairly unpleasant comments on this thread.  Yet it's always argued on here that bigotry is a one way street.

I don't think anyone can argue that sectarianism is a one way street. Some of the comments on here are ridiculous. I have known many unionists and loyalists, get on well with them all . I live in area where historically sectarianism from either side wouldn't be tolerated. The "not an inch" stance from unionist politicians is not representative of Unionists I know. Very few unionists will admit to voting DUP  but most do. This is probably because they fear losing their uk link( which I respect) , and as result they vote for the strongest unionist party ( currently DUP) to keep SF from securing the largest party mantle ( which I understand) . I am unashamedly "republican/nationalist" in the sense that I have always had a strong desire for a United Ireland, even when it made no economic sense. However if that " United Ireland" marginalised those from a "unionist/loyalist" tradition , I want no part of it. Both sides have visited terrible tragedy on each other. Regardless of the rationale behind the conflict , there have been thousands of victims, and 27 years after the ceasefire , we still drag our heels regarding dealing with unresolved hurt. I think the economic and political barriers to an All Island solution are largely gone, but any attempt to move on has to be pro-active in healing the hurt on both sides.

Has anyone commented on not catering for unionist needs and concerns here?

I think the commentary has been on the utter bile in political unionism and how their intransigence will inevitably lead to problems.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 11:07:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 31, 2021, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Nail on head. Some fairly unpleasant comments on this thread.  Yet it's always argued on here that bigotry is a one way street.

I don't think anyone can argue that sectarianism is a one way street. Some of the comments on here are ridiculous. I have known many unionists and loyalists, get on well with them all . I live in area where historically sectarianism from either side wouldn't be tolerated. The "not an inch" stance from unionist politicians is not representative of Unionists I know. Very few unionists will admit to voting DUP  but most do. This is probably because they fear losing their uk link( which I respect) , and as result they vote for the strongest unionist party ( currently DUP) to keep SF from securing the largest party mantle ( which I understand) . I am unashamedly "republican/nationalist" in the sense that I have always had a strong desire for a United Ireland, even when it made no economic sense. However if that " United Ireland" marginalised those from a "unionist/loyalist" tradition , I want no part of it. Both sides have visited terrible tragedy on each other. Regardless of the rationale behind the conflict , there have been thousands of victims, and 27 years after the ceasefire , we still drag our heels regarding dealing with unresolved hurt. I think the economic and political barriers to an All Island solution are largely gone, but any attempt to move on has to be pro-active in healing the hurt on both sides.

Has anyone commented on not catering for unionist needs and concerns here?

I think the commentary has been on the utter bile in political unionism and how their intransigence will inevitably lead to problems.

Unionist intransigence was backed up by British support , and economic and other genuine concerns regarding the ROI. If Scotland breaks up the union, NI as we know it is gone. No loss tbh as it's been an unmitigated disaster on most measures. Regardless of this, concerns regarding the economy and role of Catholicism in The ROI no longer exist. Unionists' allies in the uK - the Tories, have shafted them. Unionist politicians should now try to promote a new constitutional arrangement for the island that cements their Britishness  (in the same way as they signed up for a similar role for irishness in Ni, in the GFA) . There is an agreed solution possible for long term stability but it doesn't involve NI ( proven disaster) as we know it.

The Ni 100 anniversary is a timely opportunity to reflect and learn. Britain's role in offloading the 26 and retaining ~90% of the GDP in the wee 6, and cementing it with a contrived sectarian statelet backfired as Ni had been an unmitigated disaster. Unionists would be well advised to have muted "celebrations" for NI100, and prove that they have learnt the lessons of the past , whilst trying to harness maximum respect for their identity in a New Ireland. Exciting times ahead
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 01, 2021, 12:08:46 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 31, 2021, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Nail on head. Some fairly unpleasant comments on this thread.  Yet it's always argued on here that bigotry is a one way street.

I don't think anyone can argue that sectarianism is a one way street. Some of the comments on here are ridiculous. I have known many unionists and loyalists, get on well with them all . I live in area where historically sectarianism from either side wouldn't be tolerated. The "not an inch" stance from unionist politicians is not representative of Unionists I know. Very few unionists will admit to voting DUP  but most do. This is probably because they fear losing their uk link( which I respect) , and as result they vote for the strongest unionist party ( currently DUP) to keep SF from securing the largest party mantle ( which I understand) . I am unashamedly "republican/nationalist" in the sense that I have always had a strong desire for a United Ireland, even when it made no economic sense. However if that " United Ireland" marginalised those from a "unionist/loyalist" tradition , I want no part of it. Both sides have visited terrible tragedy on each other. Regardless of the rationale behind the conflict , there have been thousands of victims, and 27 years after the ceasefire , we still drag our heels regarding dealing with unresolved hurt. I think the economic and political barriers to an All Island solution are largely gone, but any attempt to move on has to be pro-active in healing the hurt on both sides.

Has anyone commented on not catering for unionist needs and concerns here?

I think the commentary has been on the utter bile in political unionism and how their intransigence will inevitably lead to problems.

Think red hander had a few things to say
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on February 01, 2021, 12:35:59 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 11:07:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 31, 2021, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Nail on head. Some fairly unpleasant comments on this thread.  Yet it's always argued on here that bigotry is a one way street.

I don't think anyone can argue that sectarianism is a one way street. Some of the comments on here are ridiculous. I have known many unionists and loyalists, get on well with them all . I live in area where historically sectarianism from either side wouldn't be tolerated. The "not an inch" stance from unionist politicians is not representative of Unionists I know. Very few unionists will admit to voting DUP  but most do. This is probably because they fear losing their uk link( which I respect) , and as result they vote for the strongest unionist party ( currently DUP) to keep SF from securing the largest party mantle ( which I understand) . I am unashamedly "republican/nationalist" in the sense that I have always had a strong desire for a United Ireland, even when it made no economic sense. However if that " United Ireland" marginalised those from a "unionist/loyalist" tradition , I want no part of it. Both sides have visited terrible tragedy on each other. Regardless of the rationale behind the conflict , there have been thousands of victims, and 27 years after the ceasefire , we still drag our heels regarding dealing with unresolved hurt. I think the economic and political barriers to an All Island solution are largely gone, but any attempt to move on has to be pro-active in healing the hurt on both sides.

Has anyone commented on not catering for unionist needs and concerns here?

I think the commentary has been on the utter bile in political unionism and how their intransigence will inevitably lead to problems.

Unionist intransigence was backed up by British support , and economic and other genuine concerns regarding the ROI. If Scotland breaks up the union, NI as we know it is gone. No loss tbh as it's been an unmitigated disaster on most measures. Regardless of this, concerns regarding the economy and role of Catholicism in The ROI no longer exist. Unionists' allies in the uK - the Tories, have shafted them. Unionist politicians should now try to promote a new constitutional arrangement for the island that cements their Britishness  (in the same way as they signed up for a similar role for irishness in Ni, in the GFA) . There is an agreed solution possible for long term stability but it doesn't involve NI ( proven disaster) as we know it.

The Ni 100 anniversary is a timely opportunity to reflect and learn. Britain's role in offloading the 26 and retaining ~90% of the GDP in the wee 6, and cementing it with a contrived sectarian statelet backfired as Ni had been an unmitigated disaster. Unionists would be well advised to have muted "celebrations" for NI100, and prove that they have learnt the lessons of the past , whilst trying to harness maximum respect for their identity in a New Ireland. Exciting times ahead

They couldn't even work together on the pandemic on an all island basis (although they weren't the only ones(). A decision to follow Worzel Gummidge and his genocide party's policies. A time when it made total sense to treat the whole island as a single entity to prevent the spread. They couldn't. They had to grab their union flag. Even the most bitter, staunch unionist I'm sure could have seen the sense in it. Even Jamie B did! How many people have perished so far due to the north/South failure to work together?

Unionist parties will never work towards a new Ireland even if the inevitability of it is staring them in the face. They'll go down with the sinking ship that is Norn Iron.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on February 01, 2021, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on February 01, 2021, 12:35:59 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 11:07:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 31, 2021, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Nail on head. Some fairly unpleasant comments on this thread.  Yet it's always argued on here that bigotry is a one way street.

I don't think anyone can argue that sectarianism is a one way street. Some of the comments on here are ridiculous. I have known many unionists and loyalists, get on well with them all . I live in area where historically sectarianism from either side wouldn't be tolerated. The "not an inch" stance from unionist politicians is not representative of Unionists I know. Very few unionists will admit to voting DUP  but most do. This is probably because they fear losing their uk link( which I respect) , and as result they vote for the strongest unionist party ( currently DUP) to keep SF from securing the largest party mantle ( which I understand) . I am unashamedly "republican/nationalist" in the sense that I have always had a strong desire for a United Ireland, even when it made no economic sense. However if that " United Ireland" marginalised those from a "unionist/loyalist" tradition , I want no part of it. Both sides have visited terrible tragedy on each other. Regardless of the rationale behind the conflict , there have been thousands of victims, and 27 years after the ceasefire , we still drag our heels regarding dealing with unresolved hurt. I think the economic and political barriers to an All Island solution are largely gone, but any attempt to move on has to be pro-active in healing the hurt on both sides.

Has anyone commented on not catering for unionist needs and concerns here?

I think the commentary has been on the utter bile in political unionism and how their intransigence will inevitably lead to problems.

Unionist intransigence was backed up by British support , and economic and other genuine concerns regarding the ROI. If Scotland breaks up the union, NI as we know it is gone. No loss tbh as it's been an unmitigated disaster on most measures. Regardless of this, concerns regarding the economy and role of Catholicism in The ROI no longer exist. Unionists' allies in the uK - the Tories, have shafted them. Unionist politicians should now try to promote a new constitutional arrangement for the island that cements their Britishness  (in the same way as they signed up for a similar role for irishness in Ni, in the GFA) . There is an agreed solution possible for long term stability but it doesn't involve NI ( proven disaster) as we know it.

The Ni 100 anniversary is a timely opportunity to reflect and learn. Britain's role in offloading the 26 and retaining ~90% of the GDP in the wee 6, and cementing it with a contrived sectarian statelet backfired as Ni had been an unmitigated disaster. Unionists would be well advised to have muted "celebrations" for NI100, and prove that they have learnt the lessons of the past , whilst trying to harness maximum respect for their identity in a New Ireland. Exciting times ahead

They couldn't even work together on the pandemic on an all island basis (although they weren't the only ones(). A decision to follow Worzel Gummidge and his genocide party's policies. A time when it made total sense to treat the whole island as a single entity to prevent the spread. They couldn't. They had to grab their union flag. Even the most bitter, staunch unionist I'm sure could have seen the sense in it. Even Jamie B did! How many people have perished so far due to the north/South failure to work together?

Unionist parties will never work towards a new Ireland even if the inevitability of it is staring them in the face. They'll go down with the sinking ship that is Norn Iron.

The clue is in the name.....

That battle will never be won, but the one for the middle ground, the persuadable ones, can be won on economic grounds and the quality of public services and all that goes with it.

Talk of if they don't like it they can go back to Scotland, England and wherever is just childish bullshít and counterproductive.

These Unionists are born and reared here and every bit as part of the fabric of this new Ireland as much as anyone else and this new Ireland will need to be accommodating to them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on February 01, 2021, 09:42:53 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 01, 2021, 12:08:46 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 31, 2021, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on January 31, 2021, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: michaelg on January 31, 2021, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 31, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on January 31, 2021, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: red hander on January 30, 2021, 08:16:44 PM
Do you think the authorities, if Shinners are in a position of power, whether in full control of in a majority position, will let these scum dictate future, it's not going to happen. They will be wiped out, finally. And people from unionist community who want to participate in true democracy will have that, where they have big say in new Ireland, where they won't be treated way they treated Irish people under their apartheid statlet.
Are you advocating a bit of ethnic cleansing?
Why not try a bit of shoot to kill and internment to see if that teaches them to keep their head down and know their place?

Yeah that kind of language is a disgrace and a glimpse maybe for unionists of what they fear. Remove it please
Nail on head. Some fairly unpleasant comments on this thread.  Yet it's always argued on here that bigotry is a one way street.

I don't think anyone can argue that sectarianism is a one way street. Some of the comments on here are ridiculous. I have known many unionists and loyalists, get on well with them all . I live in area where historically sectarianism from either side wouldn't be tolerated. The "not an inch" stance from unionist politicians is not representative of Unionists I know. Very few unionists will admit to voting DUP  but most do. This is probably because they fear losing their uk link( which I respect) , and as result they vote for the strongest unionist party ( currently DUP) to keep SF from securing the largest party mantle ( which I understand) . I am unashamedly "republican/nationalist" in the sense that I have always had a strong desire for a United Ireland, even when it made no economic sense. However if that " United Ireland" marginalised those from a "unionist/loyalist" tradition , I want no part of it. Both sides have visited terrible tragedy on each other. Regardless of the rationale behind the conflict , there have been thousands of victims, and 27 years after the ceasefire , we still drag our heels regarding dealing with unresolved hurt. I think the economic and political barriers to an All Island solution are largely gone, but any attempt to move on has to be pro-active in healing the hurt on both sides.

Has anyone commented on not catering for unionist needs and concerns here?

I think the commentary has been on the utter bile in political unionism and how their intransigence will inevitably lead to problems.

Think red hander had a few things to say

I think you misunderstood him. He clarified that a few posts back but maybe it's easier for you to misrepresent others?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: skeog on February 01, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Met a man over the weekend staunch republican who was given the jab on friday got 200 on thursday extra told me he would be thinking carefully about the vote.If it affected his income he said he would be staying put regardless.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 01, 2021, 11:05:04 AM
Quote from: skeog on February 01, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Met a man over the weekend staunch republican who was given the jab on friday got 200 on thursday extra told me he would be thinking carefully about the vote.If it affected his income he said he would be staying put regardless.

Obviously not such a staunch republican, not only would he not die for Ireland but he wouldn't do without the overtime. Most people will not see that much difference, but for those who do then it is swings and roundabouts. Sadly, though, it seems that "republicans" who might lose out will vote no will unionists who might gain are also expected to vote no.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 01, 2021, 11:21:36 AM
Are people being paid "200" if they get the vaccination?
Do those "staunch republicans" know that people in the 26 Cos get paid wages for work? And higher in the main than in the 6.

Meanwhile Bertie says there should be a "Border poll" in 2028 to mark the 30th Anniversary of the GFA.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on February 01, 2021, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: skeog on February 01, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Met a man over the weekend staunch republican who was given the jab on friday got 200 on thursday extra told me he would be thinking carefully about the vote.If it affected his income he said he would be staying put regardless.

😂😂 staunch . Sadly I've met "republicans" like that as well. Diehards , who hate the brits , hate unionists, hate the free state, wouldn't know who Henry shefflin  is, but hang on "sir Alex's" every word, and every British pound's a prisoner. but tbf they have a serious charge of drink on St Patrick's day ☘️ 🇮🇪. Let's face it we all know them North and South of the border. Aye , a republican thinking carefully about a vote for a United Ireland , you literally couldn't make it up😂
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on February 01, 2021, 12:13:14 PM
Can we hold off any 'United Ireland' until I get my vaccine in the North!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on February 01, 2021, 12:30:33 PM
Quote from: skeog on February 01, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Met a man over the weekend staunch republican who was given the jab on friday got 200 on thursday extra told me he would be thinking carefully about the vote.If it affected his income he said he would be staying put regardless.

Probably flat out watching premiership, One Show on BBC and reading the Mirror too, that's my experience of some of these eejits
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on February 01, 2021, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on February 01, 2021, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: skeog on February 01, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Met a man over the weekend staunch republican who was given the jab on friday got 200 on thursday extra told me he would be thinking carefully about the vote.If it affected his income he said he would be staying put regardless.

😂😂 staunch . Sadly I've met "republicans" like that as well. Diehards , who hate the brits , hate unionists, hate the free state, wouldn't know who Henry shefflin  is, but hang on "sir Alex's" every word, and every British pound's a prisoner. but tbf they have a serious charge of drink on St Patrick's day ☘️ 🇮🇪. Let's face it we all know them North and South of the border. Aye , a republican thinking carefully about a vote for a United Ireland , you literally couldn't make it up😂

Bang on
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 01, 2021, 12:46:42 PM
So we will have Unionists and Daily Mirror types of "republicans" voting to stay under Westminster.
We will have Nationalists voting for an All Ireland outcome.
That  probably makes it 50 - 30  against UI before the "others" come into play.
Wed better wait till Unionists are down to 30% so🤔 :-[
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on February 01, 2021, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: skeog on February 01, 2021, 11:00:50 AM
Met a man over the weekend staunch republican who was given the jab on friday got 200 on thursday extra told me he would be thinking carefully about the vote.If it affected his income he said he would be staying put regardless.

I think you need to break the news to him that he's a Unionist or an economic unionist at the very least


Is he one of the whad about mai benefits brigade?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on February 01, 2021, 03:57:40 PM
Do you ever hear the tripe that Ben Lowry of the Newsletter spouts on Eamonn Dunphy's podcast...

Each and every single time:

- 10 to 15 to 20% of Catholics believe... x ... I can't remember the exact figure...
- only 5 to 10% of Catholics are dissident republican in their view
- it wasn't an apartheid state cos look it wasn't South Africa, its impossible

Then he just meanders through a pile of guff relating to the issue of the day and how, you guessed it, Portrush is as British as Finchley

These f**king morons have lost the ideological battle and are staring down the barrel and they know it

No issue at all sharing a new Ireland with would be Unionists and incorporating a proportionate amount of their views and culture, but they'd need to reflect hard on what got them to this point

Not a bad suggestion from Bertie to have the vote on the 30th of The Agreement there or thereabouts, wouldn't be keen on anything longer than that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ardtole on February 01, 2021, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 01, 2021, 12:46:42 PM
So we will have Unionists and Daily Mirror types of "republicans" voting to stay under Westminster.
We will have Nationalists voting for an All Ireland outcome.
That  probably makes it 50 - 30  against UI before the "others" come into play.
Wed better wait till Unionists are down to 30% so🤔 :-[

Plenty of lads on the dole in sandy row and ballymena and newtownards, who in the privacy of the poll booth might be tempted by the 188 euro a week the south are offering.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 01, 2021, 06:37:35 PM
€203 these days for over 25s and over 18s living independently.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on February 01, 2021, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: tiempo on February 01, 2021, 03:57:40 PM
Do you ever hear the tripe that Ben Lowry of the Newsletter spouts on Eamonn Dunphy's podcast...

Each and every single time:

- 10 to 15 to 20% of Catholics believe... x ... I can't remember the exact figure...
- only 5 to 10% of Catholics are dissident republican in their view
- it wasn't an apartheid state cos look it wasn't South Africa, its impossible

Then he just meanders through a pile of guff relating to the issue of the day and how, you guessed it, Portrush is as British as Finchley

These f**king morons have lost the ideological battle and are staring down the barrel and they know it

No issue at all sharing a new Ireland with would be Unionists and incorporating a proportionate amount of their views and culture, but they'd need to reflect hard on what got them to this point

Not a bad suggestion from Bertie to have the vote on the 30th of The Agreement there or thereabouts, wouldn't be keen on anything longer than that

Is Ben Lowry deluded or dishonest or both. An apologist for all the failings of NI , given far too much airtime. I don't know any nationalist or republican politician who doesn't want to respect British identity , but I have to say political unionism still fails to respect Irish identity . As an Irish nationalist I've lived under British rule all my life, and had to just get on with it. To reassure unionists this didn't in anyway dilute my Irishness ( arguably it reinforced it) , so when unionists move under Irish jurisdiction their Britishness is likely to be reinforced.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: restorepride on February 01, 2021, 11:25:23 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on February 01, 2021, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: tiempo on February 01, 2021, 03:57:40 PM
Do you ever hear the tripe that Ben Lowry of the Newsletter spouts on Eamonn Dunphy's podcast...

Each and every single time:

- 10 to 15 to 20% of Catholics believe... x ... I can't remember the exact figure...
- only 5 to 10% of Catholics are dissident republican in their view
- it wasn't an apartheid state cos look it wasn't South Africa, its impossible

Then he just meanders through a pile of guff relating to the issue of the day and how, you guessed it, Portrush is as British as Finchley

These f**king morons have lost the ideological battle and are staring down the barrel and they know it

No issue at all sharing a new Ireland with would be Unionists and incorporating a proportionate amount of their views and culture, but they'd need to reflect hard on what got them to this point

Not a bad suggestion from Bertie to have the vote on the 30th of The Agreement there or thereabouts, wouldn't be keen on anything longer than that

Is Ben Lowry deluded or dishonest or both. An apologist for all the failings of NI , given far too much airtime. I don't know any nationalist or republican politician who doesn't want to respect British identity , but I have to say political unionism still fails to respect Irish identity . As an Irish nationalist I've lived under British rule all my life, and had to just get on with it. To reassure unionists this didn't in anyway dilute my Irishness ( arguably it reinforced it) , so when unionists move under Irish jurisdiction their Britishness is likely to be reinforced.
Who is Ben Lowry?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on February 02, 2021, 09:43:32 AM
Quote from: restorepride on February 01, 2021, 11:25:23 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on February 01, 2021, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: tiempo on February 01, 2021, 03:57:40 PM
Do you ever hear the tripe that Ben Lowry of the Newsletter spouts on Eamonn Dunphy's podcast...

Each and every single time:

- 10 to 15 to 20% of Catholics believe... x ... I can't remember the exact figure...
- only 5 to 10% of Catholics are dissident republican in their view
- it wasn't an apartheid state cos look it wasn't South Africa, its impossible

Then he just meanders through a pile of guff relating to the issue of the day and how, you guessed it, Portrush is as British as Finchley

These f**king morons have lost the ideological battle and are staring down the barrel and they know it

No issue at all sharing a new Ireland with would be Unionists and incorporating a proportionate amount of their views and culture, but they'd need to reflect hard on what got them to this point

Not a bad suggestion from Bertie to have the vote on the 30th of The Agreement there or thereabouts, wouldn't be keen on anything longer than that

Is Ben Lowry deluded or dishonest or both. An apologist for all the failings of NI , given far too much airtime. I don't know any nationalist or republican politician who doesn't want to respect British identity , but I have to say political unionism still fails to respect Irish identity . As an Irish nationalist I've lived under British rule all my life, and had to just get on with it. To reassure unionists this didn't in anyway dilute my Irishness ( arguably it reinforced it) , so when unionists move under Irish jurisdiction their Britishness is likely to be reinforced.
Who is Ben Lowry?

I think he's deputy editor of the news letter, he's wheeled out by tv/radio presenters as an analyst , and   Because he's a journalist he is often perceived as neutral , whereas he's exclusively  unionist/British in his outlook. Obviously he's entitled to those views ,  but he has a very limited insight or interest in the  "Irish" viewpoint . He's a fairly insignificant player Tbf, but since you've asked.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on February 02, 2021, 10:11:43 AM
Hes a bigot who's slightly more educated than Bryson, his big issue last autumn was there was too many taigs going to Queens. Big mate of Ruth Dudley Edwards which in itself says it all. Sam Mc Bride who is editor of the Newsletter is a lot more balanced and at least tries to give the Unionist point of view with out the whole them'uns did this crap you get from Lowry.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on February 02, 2021, 10:15:25 AM
Quote from: pbat on February 02, 2021, 10:11:43 AM
Hes a bigot who's slightly more educated than Bryson, his big issue last autumn was there was too many taigs going to Queens. Big mate of Ruth Dudley Edwards which in itself says it all. Sam Mc Bride who is editor of the Newsletter is a lot more balanced and at least tries to give the Unionist point of view with out the whole them'uns did this crap you get from Lowry.

GAA tops were preventing unionists from going to Queens FFS.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on February 02, 2021, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: pbat on February 02, 2021, 10:11:43 AM
Hes a bigot who's slightly more educated than Bryson, his big issue last autumn was there was too many taigs going to Queens. Big mate of Ruth Dudley Edwards which in itself says it all. Sam Mc Bride who is editor of the Newsletter is a lot more balanced and at least tries to give the Unionist point of view with out the whole them'uns did this crap you get from Lowry.

McBride is only better at hiding it.

The Newsletter is a unionist rag and should be discounted as any sort of credible media outlet.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on February 02, 2021, 10:41:08 AM
Quote from: pbat on February 02, 2021, 10:11:43 AM
Hes a bigot who's slightly more educated than Bryson, his big issue last autumn was there was too many taigs going to Queens. Big mate of Ruth Dudley Edwards which in itself says it all. Sam Mc Bride who is editor of the Newsletter is a lot more balanced and at least tries to give the Unionist point of view with out the whole them'uns did this crap you get from Lowry.

Sam is the Political Editor not the Editor. Lowry is the Deputy Editor.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2021, 11:03:41 AM
I've only heard Ben Lowry a couple of times but on each occasion he waffles through his piss weak argument sounding like he's on the verge of crying
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on February 02, 2021, 11:31:08 AM
Newsletter is all 'fury'.

Every headline is 'unionist fury' - always angry.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on February 02, 2021, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: restorepride on February 01, 2021, 11:25:23 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on February 01, 2021, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: tiempo on February 01, 2021, 03:57:40 PM
Do you ever hear the tripe that Ben Lowry of the Newsletter spouts on Eamonn Dunphy's podcast...

Each and every single time:

- 10 to 15 to 20% of Catholics believe... x ... I can't remember the exact figure...
- only 5 to 10% of Catholics are dissident republican in their view
- it wasn't an apartheid state cos look it wasn't South Africa, its impossible

Then he just meanders through a pile of guff relating to the issue of the day and how, you guessed it, Portrush is as British as Finchley

These f**king morons have lost the ideological battle and are staring down the barrel and they know it

No issue at all sharing a new Ireland with would be Unionists and incorporating a proportionate amount of their views and culture, but they'd need to reflect hard on what got them to this point

Not a bad suggestion from Bertie to have the vote on the 30th of The Agreement there or thereabouts, wouldn't be keen on anything longer than that

Is Ben Lowry deluded or dishonest or both. An apologist for all the failings of NI , given far too much airtime. I don't know any nationalist or republican politician who doesn't want to respect British identity , but I have to say political unionism still fails to respect Irish identity . As an Irish nationalist I've lived under British rule all my life, and had to just get on with it. To reassure unionists this didn't in anyway dilute my Irishness ( arguably it reinforced it) , so when unionists move under Irish jurisdiction their Britishness is likely to be reinforced.
Who is Ben Lowry?

Deputy Political Editor of The Newsletter. It's actually the oldest English language daily newspaper in the world. It's a unionist paper, and is the only daily newspaper from one community that does not have, and never has had, a weekly columnist from the 'other side', and it recently recruited as it's most recent columnist one Ruth Dudley Edwards. So yeah. It's an absolute rag. So sectarian minded is it, that a recent article they published about the lockdown was headlined: "Covid-19: Loyalist doctor and republican doctor each voice fears over fresh lockdown". Yep. They even managed to take doctors' views on the lockdown and turn it into "ussuns and themmuns" story. Mercifully, it has an absolutely tiny readership.

Ben has regular appearances on BBC Ulster's 'Talkback'. William Crowley is a very good presenter and when his views are challenged by William, Ben generally ends up getting into angry rants which typically end up in having what sound like genuine emotional breakdowns. He gets so angry and emotionally charged that he tends to sound like he's going to start crying. It's genuinely funny to listen to sometimes, particularly when he gets worked up over such trivial things (eg BBC not playing 'Rule Britannia' on Last Night of the Proms' anymore) or when challenged on his overtly sectarian opinions which he of course denies are motivated by sectarianism (e.g. too many GAA tops around Queen's University).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on February 02, 2021, 11:43:37 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on February 02, 2021, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: restorepride on February 01, 2021, 11:25:23 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on February 01, 2021, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: tiempo on February 01, 2021, 03:57:40 PM
Do you ever hear the tripe that Ben Lowry of the Newsletter spouts on Eamonn Dunphy's podcast...

Each and every single time:

- 10 to 15 to 20% of Catholics believe... x ... I can't remember the exact figure...
- only 5 to 10% of Catholics are dissident republican in their view
- it wasn't an apartheid state cos look it wasn't South Africa, its impossible

Then he just meanders through a pile of guff relating to the issue of the day and how, you guessed it, Portrush is as British as Finchley

These f**king morons have lost the ideological battle and are staring down the barrel and they know it

No issue at all sharing a new Ireland with would be Unionists and incorporating a proportionate amount of their views and culture, but they'd need to reflect hard on what got them to this point

Not a bad suggestion from Bertie to have the vote on the 30th of The Agreement there or thereabouts, wouldn't be keen on anything longer than that

Is Ben Lowry deluded or dishonest or both. An apologist for all the failings of NI , given far too much airtime. I don't know any nationalist or republican politician who doesn't want to respect British identity , but I have to say political unionism still fails to respect Irish identity . As an Irish nationalist I've lived under British rule all my life, and had to just get on with it. To reassure unionists this didn't in anyway dilute my Irishness ( arguably it reinforced it) , so when unionists move under Irish jurisdiction their Britishness is likely to be reinforced.
Who is Ben Lowry?

Deputy Political Editor of The Newsletter. It's actually the oldest English language daily newspaper in the world. It's a unionist paper, and is the only daily newspaper from one community that does not have, and never has had, a weekly columnist from the 'other side', and it recently recruited as it's most recent columnist one Ruth Dudley Edwards. So yeah. It's an absolute rag. So sectarian minded is it, that a recent article they published about the lockdown was headlined: "Covid-19: Loyalist doctor and republican doctor each voice fears over fresh lockdown". Yep. They even managed to take doctors' views on the lockdown and turn it into "ussuns and themmuns" story. Mercifully, it has an absolutely tiny readership.

Ben has regular appearances on BBC Ulster's 'Talkback'. William Crowley is a very good presenter and when his views are challenged by William, Ben generally ends up getting into angry rants which typically end up in having what sound like genuine emotional breakdowns. He gets so angry and emotionally charged that he tends to sound like he's going to start crying. It's genuinely funny to listen to sometimes, particularly when he gets worked up over such trivial things (eg BBC not playing 'Rule Britannia' on Last Night of the Proms' anymore) or when challenged on his overtly sectarian opinions which he of course denies are motivated by sectarianism (e.g. too many GAA tops around Queen's University).

Anybody know how much these lads get paid for going on The Nolan Show and Talkback etc?

Would journalists also be getting an appearance fee or is it just the 'commentators' like Bryson etc. who get paid?

By the way, how do you become a 'commentator' - there's a woman from Magee Uni on quite regularly (can't remember her name now) but I think she's high up in the university. She is on at election time and  etc.  But I was wondering how is she 'qualified' to be on tv or what do you need to have etc.?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on February 02, 2021, 12:11:29 PM
Low readership or not, the Newsletter still continues so it must be doing alright. Never read it in my life, so can't comment on it.

However, Nolan also drags up trivial sectarian matters, starts a phone in and the bitter rants begin. He's one of the things that keep the whole bitter sectarianism going in this place. Most people wouldn't hear of these trivial, minor things if they weren't highlighted by the likes of Nolan, and would continue on their merry way going about their business oblivious.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on February 02, 2021, 01:11:11 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on February 02, 2021, 12:11:29 PM
Low readership or not, the Newsletter still continues so it must be doing alright. Never read it in my life, so can't comment on it.

However, Nolan also drags up trivial sectarian matters, starts a phone in and the bitter rants begin. He's one of the things that keep the whole bitter sectarianism going in this place. Most people wouldn't hear of these trivial, minor things if they weren't highlighted by the likes of Nolan, and would continue on their merry way going about their business oblivious.

Back in Mid 90s worked in a newsagents and Monday - Friday we wouldn't have sold any but sold a handful on a Saturday as it had the prices from sale yards around the North. Don't know if that would still be the case.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on February 03, 2021, 02:24:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on February 02, 2021, 12:11:29 PM
Low readership or not, the Newsletter still continues so it must be doing alright. Never read it in my life, so can't comment on it.

However, Nolan also drags up trivial sectarian matters, starts a phone in and the bitter rants begin. He's one of the things that keep the whole bitter sectarianism going in this place. Most people wouldn't hear of these trivial, minor things if they weren't highlighted by the likes of Nolan, and would continue on their merry way going about their business oblivious.

Agree, I wouldn't underestimate the influence of Nolan in keeping sectarian fires burning. Totally unrepresentative particularly since DUP snd SF boycott the show at various times. Wheels out divisive characters with no mandate, and public phoners are often bigoted , inarticulate "slabbers " with little to do . Articulate intelligent argument is drowned out by contrived controversy and ignorance. People are quick to get the boot into politicians and what they are paid , but in reality they get paid a fraction of what Nolan walks home with. A shamelessly divisive character
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on February 03, 2021, 02:41:31 PM
I'd say anybody could start their own show and play the Nolan roll - just make the topic always orange and green and there's an hour filled every day.

I always think Talkback is the middle class version of The Nolan Show
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 07, 2021, 11:20:21 PM


https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/republic-beats-northern-ireland-for-life-expectancy-and-households-are-3300-better-off-40061262.html

Households in the Republic have €3,800 (£3,300) more disposable income annually than those in Northern Ireland, new research shows.
This equates to a 12% gap after accounting for price differences in both areas.
Life expectancy is also now 1.4 years longer in the south, according to the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 24, 2021, 06:44:26 PM
I see on the RTÉ News a big investment in Derry/Strabane of around £1Billion.
Includes €500m from the Taoiseach's Shared Island Unit.

Angela won't like that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on February 24, 2021, 07:49:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 24, 2021, 06:44:26 PM
I see on the RTÉ News a big investment in Derry/Strabane of around £1Billion.
Includes €500m from the Taoiseach's Shared Island Unit.

Angela won't like that.

Is it the City deal you're on about? £250m
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-56176160 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-56176160)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: An Watcher on February 24, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Did I hear £50 million for Strabane Town centre? Tremendous news. Not before time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on March 05, 2021, 10:07:18 AM
Not bad considering he's a langer.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1364864367121022977 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1364864367121022977)

'Outstanding physical and comedic performer' - The Scotsman
'Marxist, terrorist-supporting sc**bag' - Some lad on Twitter.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:57:48 AM
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/optimized/3X/7/5/7554f7bd199fa6bd1245e664786ee3faf2db737c_2_690x442.jpeg)

This is a fantastic piece and sums up the Free State attitude to northern nationalists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 08:51:54 AM
This is a good argument and outlines why most in the catholic community, even those unconvinced about unity have no allegiance to the 6 county state. A major OG by unionism.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 17, 2021, 09:12:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:57:48 AM
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/optimized/3X/7/5/7554f7bd199fa6bd1245e664786ee3faf2db737c_2_690x442.jpeg)

This is a fantastic piece and sums up the Free State attitude to northern nationalists.

Pretty much spot on from my perspective (other perspectives are valid too) in so much Unionism over the last number of years are struggling to come to terms with the fact they're not in the majority as they once were and a lot of that is indeed to do with their own intransigence and ignorance as much as shifting demographics and the emergence of Alliance to fill the middle ground.

That same middle ground is where any referendum on a UI will be won and lost, something the Shinners need to be acutely aware of and some of their more vocal members will put that middle ground off them and subsequently the thought of a UI.

A UI will almost certainly see the end of the duopoly of FF and FG and they'll obviously want to preserve that for their usual selfish interests for as long as possible.

I think the 2021 consensus currently being rolled out at the minute is going to tell us a tale.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2021, 10:38:41 AM
Did you mean Census?
You're absolutely right when you say the "middle ground" will decide the issue.
As for Political parties in the future All Ireland entity....
As well as FF/FG I think SF will have no reason for existence either and will likely split into 2 or 3.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:57:48 AM
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/optimized/3X/7/5/7554f7bd199fa6bd1245e664786ee3faf2db737c_2_690x442.jpeg)

This is a fantastic piece and sums up the Free State attitude to northern nationalists.

if that's the free state attitude to northern nationalists

Why would northern nationalists want to join with us in a United Ireland ?

Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:57:48 AM
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/optimized/3X/7/5/7554f7bd199fa6bd1245e664786ee3faf2db737c_2_690x442.jpeg)

This is a fantastic piece and sums up the Free State attitude to northern nationalists.

if that's the free state attitude to northern nationalists

Why would northern nationalists want to join with us in a United Ireland ?

Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26

That's a typical entitled free state Ireland viewpoint

We don't want to leave our rotten state to join your rotten state.

We need a new Ireland, that consigns the bigotry of unionism of the political gangsterism of FFG to the dustbin.

That's why partitionists like you just don't get it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:13:57 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:57:48 AM
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/optimized/3X/7/5/7554f7bd199fa6bd1245e664786ee3faf2db737c_2_690x442.jpeg)

This is a fantastic piece and sums up the Free State attitude to northern nationalists.

if that's the free state attitude to northern nationalists

Why would northern nationalists want to join with us in a United Ireland ?

Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26

That's a typical entitled free state Ireland viewpoint

We don't want to leave our rotten state to join your rotten state.

We need a new Ireland, that consigns the bigotry of unionism of the political gangsterism of FFG to the dustbin.

That's why partitionists like you just don't get it.

You hate us

That's fairly obvious

I really don't understand then why you want to join us in a UI

Are there many more like you up there?

Because if there are,you are doing the job of preventing a UI better than any DUPer or Loyalist could ever do

Completely self defeating in your attitude of hectoring and insulting those of us in the south who might vote for a UI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 11:24:18 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:13:57 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:57:48 AM
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/optimized/3X/7/5/7554f7bd199fa6bd1245e664786ee3faf2db737c_2_690x442.jpeg)

This is a fantastic piece and sums up the Free State attitude to northern nationalists.

if that's the free state attitude to northern nationalists

Why would northern nationalists want to join with us in a United Ireland ?

Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26

That's a typical entitled free state Ireland viewpoint

We don't want to leave our rotten state to join your rotten state.

We need a new Ireland, that consigns the bigotry of unionism of the political gangsterism of FFG to the dustbin.

That's why partitionists like you just don't get it.

You hate us

That's fairly obvious

I really don't understand then why you want to join us in a UI

Are there many more like you up there?

Because if there are,you are the doing the job better of preventing a UI than any DUPer or Loyalist could ever do

Completely self defeating in your attitude of hectoring and insulting those of us in the south who might vote for a UI

Hate ye? No. I think that's projection from you, it's your deep rooted hatred of northern natioanlists. You see it in the establishment treatment of a political party with its base roots in the north.

You see routinely in the Dail, we saw a few weeks ago in a scurrilous attack from Micheal Martin on victims of the troubles. He was asked a question on behalf of a group of relatives of victims of the troubles, this groups contained victims from all divides, he was asked if he would act on it in his position as head of the free state. Rather than addressing the needs of victims of the troubles, he had not even read the letter, he decided to attack the messenger, a person who was a bereaved relative of the troubles and I think tells you all you need to know of the hatred free staters like yourself have on the troubles.

I do think the free state should be utterly ashamed of their inaction and their treatment of northern nationalists.

The article above is something you should take the time to read, it shows the kind of backward thinking you engage in.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 17, 2021, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:57:48 AM
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/optimized/3X/7/5/7554f7bd199fa6bd1245e664786ee3faf2db737c_2_690x442.jpeg)

This is a fantastic piece and sums up the Free State attitude to northern nationalists.

if that's the free state attitude to northern nationalists

Why would northern nationalists want to join with us in a United Ireland ?

Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26

Opinion polls are one thing and I don't doubt that there's a desire among the population for a UI but that same enthusiasm isn't shown by either FF or FG leadership throughout history and especially that great leader in place now.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2021, 01:40:12 PM
https://www.thejournal.ie/brexit-permanently-changed-northern-ireland-5376526-Mar2021/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above

And it's to the eternal shame of any Irish person in the 26 counties if they regard the independence of their own country as "a minor issue". The sort of people that wouldn't know a principle if it jimped up and bit them in the ass.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2021, 04:36:22 PM
Good jases more pontification!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
Christ Almighty. The vast majority of nationalist envy the South for having freedom and independence. there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight. it is true that some in the Republic view the North as a foreign country, possibly a sizeable few but I'd say that given the right circumstances and that is a two way street, unity would be no issue. Bating our Southern brothers and constance reference to the Freestate does not help.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2021, 04:47:08 PM
100% spot on Apples.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:53:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2021, 04:36:22 PM
Good jases more pontification!!

A Free Stater complaining about someone from the north pontificating...I've seen it all now!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 05:03:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
Christ Almighty. The vast majority of nationalist envy the South for having freedom and independence. there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight. it is true that some in the Republic view the North as a foreign country, possibly a sizeable few but I'd say that given the right circumstances and that is a two way street, unity would be no issue. Bating our Southern brothers and constance reference to the Freestate does not help.

And what does the esablishment figureheads of the 26 consistently playing political games with victims of the troubles achieve?

Northern nationalists have been treated with contempt from the southern counterparts for decades, we shouldn't be afraid to call it out for what it is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2021, 05:08:57 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:53:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2021, 04:36:22 PM
Good jases more pontification!!

A Free Stater complaining about someone from the north pontificating...I've seen it all now!
Still so blind 😪
Irish Free State was abolished 31/12/1937.
Any "Free Staters"(sic) alive now are all over 83.

Hopefully when the Referendum comes it will be people like Apples promoting a yes vote not blind hate filled bigots.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight.

Not spoiling for a fight in the slightest. I didn't say what I said in search of a reaction. I said it because it's my total belief. There are people in the south who believe it was morally right and necessary that our forefathers went to war and killed people for the sake of their independence and, in the starkest of contrasts, regard the aspiration of independence of those left behind as "a minor issue". I make no apology for regarding such people as being utterly contemptible.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above

And it's to the eternal shame of any Irish person in the 26 counties if they regard the independence of their own country as "a minor issue". The sort of people that wouldn't know a principle if it jimped up and bit them in the ass.

Most people are concerned day to day with family, school, work, money, chasing women etc. And given that reunification has not been a live political issue or prospect for most people alive in the south, its hardly going to be at the forefront of their thinking, politically, especially for those living far from the border. The south is not the north, were unification is a majorly divisive topic and the Troubles were a real, everyday part of life. Most people in the south would support reunificiation in theory, and, IMO would happily endorse a united Ireland if it actually came down to it. For years though, its been neither divisive enough nor a sufficiently realistic prospect that it would be a subject of debate or emotion in the south.

The only person I ever had a debate with in my life about NI politics and a united Ireland was a protestant woman from the north I went out with years ago. Everyone else I knew was pretty much of the same mind: we wish the north could become/remain peaceful and normal, and if it every became a possibility, we'd like to see a united Ireland. Outside of that, there was nothing to get exercised about among the vast majority of Irish people in the south.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above

And it's to the eternal shame of any Irish person in the 26 counties if they regard the independence of their own country as "a minor issue". The sort of people that wouldn't know a principle if it jimped up and bit them in the ass.

Most people are concerned day to day with family, school, work, money, chasing women etc. And given that reunification has not been a live political issue or prospect for most people alive in the south, its hardly going to be at the forefront of their thinking, politically, especially for those living far from the border. The south is not the north, were unification is a majorly divisive topic and the Troubles were a real, everyday part of life. Most people in the south would support reunificiation in theory, and, IMO would happily endorse a united Ireland if it actually came down to it. For years though, its been neither divisive enough nor a sufficiently realistic prospect that it would be a subject of debate or emotion in the south.

The only person I ever had a debate with in my life about NI politics and a united Ireland was a protestant woman from the north I went out with years ago. Everyone else I knew was pretty much of the same mind: we wish the north could become/remain peaceful and normal, and if it every became a possibility, we'd like to see a united Ireland. Outside of that, there was nothing to get exercised about among the vast majority of Irish people in the south.

And what's your take of southern politicians of FFG launching into a "But the IRA" type deflect tactics when one party brings up legacy issues of innocent troubles victims? What has the free state establishment ever done for victims of British state terrorism on this island?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above

And it's to the eternal shame of any Irish person in the 26 counties if they regard the independence of their own country as "a minor issue". The sort of people that wouldn't know a principle if it jimped up and bit them in the ass.

Most people are concerned day to day with family, school, work, money, chasing women etc. And given that reunification has not been a live political issue or prospect for most people alive in the south, its hardly going to be at the forefront of their thinking, politically, especially for those living far from the border. The south is not the north, were unification is a majorly divisive topic and the Troubles were a real, everyday part of life. Most people in the south would support reunificiation in theory, and, IMO would happily endorse a united Ireland if it actually came down to it. For years though, its been neither divisive enough nor a sufficiently realistic prospect that it would be a subject of debate or emotion in the south.

The only person I ever had a debate with in my life about NI politics and a united Ireland was a protestant woman from the north I went out with years ago. Everyone else I knew was pretty much of the same mind: we wish the north could become/remain peaceful and normal, and if it every became a possibility, we'd like to see a united Ireland. Outside of that, there was nothing to get exercised about among the vast majority of Irish people in the south.

And what's your take of southern politicians of FFG launching into a "But the IRA" type deflect tactics when one party brings up legacy issues of innocent troubles victims? What has the free state establishment ever done for victims of British state terrorism on this island?

I can't speak to that Angelo.

I've been in the US close to two decades now, so I'm not up to date on day to day hand waving or hypocrisy of leading Irish politicians.

My point was a more general one about what could be perceived, probably correctly, as complacency or indifference on the part of the general southern population with respect to the lives of people in the north. If it came down to it, I'm sure many of us would also have the same disconnect with what goes on or went on in inner city Dublin or Limerick.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 05:28:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above

And it's to the eternal shame of any Irish person in the 26 counties if they regard the independence of their own country as "a minor issue". The sort of people that wouldn't know a principle if it jimped up and bit them in the ass.

Most people are concerned day to day with family, school, work, money, chasing women etc. And given that reunification has not been a live political issue or prospect for most people alive in the south, its hardly going to be at the forefront of their thinking, politically, especially for those living far from the border. The south is not the north, were unification is a majorly divisive topic and the Troubles were a real, everyday part of life. Most people in the south would support reunificiation in theory, and, IMO would happily endorse a united Ireland if it actually came down to it. For years though, its been neither divisive enough nor a sufficiently realistic prospect that it would be a subject of debate or emotion in the south.

The only person I ever had a debate with in my life about NI politics and a united Ireland was a protestant woman from the north I went out with years ago. Everyone else I knew was pretty much of the same mind: we wish the north could become/remain peaceful and normal, and if it every became a possibility, we'd like to see a united Ireland. Outside of that, there was nothing to get exercised about among the vast majority of Irish people in the south.

I've no doubt that a majority are in favour of reunification, but the reality is that there is a significant number of people in the south who are deeply partitionist. The latest opinion poll in the south showed something like a third of those polled who said they just did not want a united Ireland.

And I 100% understand that people are most concerned about their own family/work/school etc. Believe it or not, people's daily priorities in the north are identical. That doesn't mean other things can't be regarded as important too. Or that an "I'm alright Jack" attitude is excusable. People in the south can want the best for family/work etc, and still regard the fact that their own country is partitioned as being more than some "minor issue".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 05:31:33 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight.

Not spoiling for a fight in the slightest. I didn't say what I said in search of a reaction. I said it because it's my total belief. There are people in the south who believe it was morally right and necessary that our forefathers went to war and killed people for the sake of their independence and, in the starkest of contrasts, regard the aspiration of independence of those left behind as "a minor issue". I make no apology for regarding such people as being utterly contemptible.

You clearly have utter contempt for the majority of the south then. For the vast majority buying a house, access to healthcare, a job and what taxes they pay is far more important than demanding a unified Ireland. You consider that some sort of insult or a lack of Irish patriotism, for us it's just our priorities in life are different to yours. Personally I don't feel a lack of anger at the fact we don't have a united Ireland makes me any less Irish

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 05:41:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 05:31:33 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight.

Not spoiling for a fight in the slightest. I didn't say what I said in search of a reaction. I said it because it's my total belief. There are people in the south who believe it was morally right and necessary that our forefathers went to war and killed people for the sake of their independence and, in the starkest of contrasts, regard the aspiration of independence of those left behind as "a minor issue". I make no apology for regarding such people as being utterly contemptible.

You clearly have utter contempt for the majority of the south then. For the vast majority buying a house, access to healthcare, a job and what taxes they pay is far more important than demanding a unified Ireland. You consider that some sort of insult or a lack of Irish patriotism, for us it's just our priorities in life are different to yours. Personally I don't feel a lack of anger at the fact we don't have a united Ireland makes me any less Irish
The majority of people in the North have the same priorities as people in the South - though I think that's more the case for Irish nationalists than British unionists

But ironically, it seems to me that a lot of Northern nationalists who vilify people in the Republic for viewing a united Ireland as a fringe issue cannot get their head around the deep emotional attachment to the UK among many Unionists and expect them to just fall in line if and when a united Ireland ever comes to pass

It's very ironic that some people whose obsession with a flag overrides all other issues cannot comprehend anybody on "the other side" having an obsession with a flag that overrides all other issues

If and when a border poll is ever held in the Republic, it'll pass easily, because the people who are vilified on here as "west Brits" will be leading the Yes campaign - they will win over the middle ground with ease

The NI one would be a sectarian headcount which explodes tensions into violence among extremists
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 05:42:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above

And it's to the eternal shame of any Irish person in the 26 counties if they regard the independence of their own country as "a minor issue". The sort of people that wouldn't know a principle if it jimped up and bit them in the ass.

Most people are concerned day to day with family, school, work, money, chasing women etc. And given that reunification has not been a live political issue or prospect for most people alive in the south, its hardly going to be at the forefront of their thinking, politically, especially for those living far from the border. The south is not the north, were unification is a majorly divisive topic and the Troubles were a real, everyday part of life. Most people in the south would support reunificiation in theory, and, IMO would happily endorse a united Ireland if it actually came down to it. For years though, its been neither divisive enough nor a sufficiently realistic prospect that it would be a subject of debate or emotion in the south.

The only person I ever had a debate with in my life about NI politics and a united Ireland was a protestant woman from the north I went out with years ago. Everyone else I knew was pretty much of the same mind: we wish the north could become/remain peaceful and normal, and if it every became a possibility, we'd like to see a united Ireland. Outside of that, there was nothing to get exercised about among the vast majority of Irish people in the south.

And what's your take of southern politicians of FFG launching into a "But the IRA" type deflect tactics when one party brings up legacy issues of innocent troubles victims? What has the free state establishment ever done for victims of British state terrorism on this island?

I can't speak to that Angelo.

I've been in the US close to two decades now, so I'm not up to date on day to day hand waving or hypocrisy of leading Irish politicians.

My point was a more general one about what could be perceived, probably correctly, as complacency or indifference on the part of the general southern population with respect to the lives of people in the north. If it came down to it, I'm sure many of us would also have the same disconnect with what goes on or went on in inner city Dublin or Limerick.

My issue would be with the political establishment and their disgraceful, polarising attitude to northern nationalist, to their revisionism of the troubles - a conflict which they played a very active role in enflaming.

I think for anyone to say the policies, actions and statements from FFG politicians for decades have been nothing short of disgusting through the years.

There is a sense of where the free state looks down on northern nationalists - look at the GAA coverage, look at the way Ulster football is characterised, stereotyped and lampooned. You felt a hostility when you travelled south for matches. I know I felt it - not in the border counties mind but the further south you went.

I recall an interview Ricey gave about a decade ago where he spoke about that very subject and how you could sense that lingering animosity when you went down south. Tyrone's glory years kind of aligned with Armagh in that early 00s period. I'm sure the Armagh lads probably felt some of that too, Tyrone were characterised as a sneaky team who got where they were by cheating. Armagh were characterised as a bunch of aggressive gym monkeys who went out to play the macho man act and only got where they were by thuggery. Whereas Galway and Kerry and the likes were pure footballers who didn't engage in any of that who would never dare engage in any nonsense. This Dublin team are a team of model professionals and humanitarians. Gaelic football is just a subset of that culture that exists down south where northern nationalists are bogey men.

You see that type of mentality here too. Dublin7, Hound, Rossfan and a few more are master purveyors of it.

There is a culture in the south whereby caricatures of northern nationalists has been set, negative ones. The Troubles have been rewritten, whereas it was alright for the Free State to disappear hundreds, to knock off RIC officers, where civil war was accepted. For notherners we were animals to fight back against a sectarian state, to not turn a blind eye to the murders of our friends, neighbours and families, to not take being burned out of homes and denied the same rights to voting, jobs, education as the other section our community lying down. This narrative has been spun for decades by the Free State establishment politicians in the south and by the media which they control and regulate very tightly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:14:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 05:28:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above

And it's to the eternal shame of any Irish person in the 26 counties if they regard the independence of their own country as "a minor issue". The sort of people that wouldn't know a principle if it jimped up and bit them in the ass.

Most people are concerned day to day with family, school, work, money, chasing women etc. And given that reunification has not been a live political issue or prospect for most people alive in the south, its hardly going to be at the forefront of their thinking, politically, especially for those living far from the border. The south is not the north, were unification is a majorly divisive topic and the Troubles were a real, everyday part of life. Most people in the south would support reunificiation in theory, and, IMO would happily endorse a united Ireland if it actually came down to it. For years though, its been neither divisive enough nor a sufficiently realistic prospect that it would be a subject of debate or emotion in the south.

The only person I ever had a debate with in my life about NI politics and a united Ireland was a protestant woman from the north I went out with years ago. Everyone else I knew was pretty much of the same mind: we wish the north could become/remain peaceful and normal, and if it every became a possibility, we'd like to see a united Ireland. Outside of that, there was nothing to get exercised about among the vast majority of Irish people in the south.

I've no doubt that a majority are in favour of reunification, but the reality is that there is a significant number of people in the south who are deeply partitionist. The latest opinion poll in the south showed something like a third of those polled who said they just did not want a united Ireland.

And I 100% understand that people are most concerned about their own family/work/school etc. Believe it or not, people's daily priorities in the north are identical. That doesn't mean other things can't be regarded as important too. Or that an "I'm alright Jack" attitude is excusable. People in the south can want the best for family/work etc, and still regard the fact that their own country is partitioned as being more than some "minor issue".

But people in the south haven't had to live with the consequences of partition, or if they did, they are now a few generations removed from the really serious live effects of it. Its an abstract issue not directly affecting them, the same as what takes place in some inner city block of flats or, for a family not affected, a serious illness or death of a young person. In terms of issues not directly affecting them personally, some people might get interested in homelessness, some environmentalism, others Sinn Fein politics. Everyone has an "I'm all right Jack/its not my problem" attitude to most things. Its the way of the world unfortunately, especially when you may have other overriding concerns politically.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 07:10:13 PM
Sure the only difference between the current dissos and the PIRA is that the PIRA surrendered

No Shinnerbot has ever given a credible explanation of any difference

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on March 17, 2021, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.

There is no doubt that the hand wringing hypocrisy of many politicians in the south is hard to stomach . This is a cause celebre of FFG, with self-preservation in mind in the midst of SF progress. That said , If SF want to get into power they are going to have to be more proactive in making links with others ie potential coalition partners . Regardless of the reasons behind the IRA campaign , there are several victims of that campaign , and a fulsome apology for the hurt caused to so many is the only way SF can  gain real respect from the middle ground.  Not least because It's an open goal for FFG & their media puppets to bring up IRA atrocities , when they need to. More importantly such an apology puts victims at the top of the agenda, where they deserve to be.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on March 17, 2021, 07:30:40 PM
Rep. Kevin J. Boyle
@RepKevinBoyle
Happy St Patrick's Day! This is the special day people living across the world recognize & celebrate their Irish heritage. May this be one of the last holidays before at long last there is a free & united Ireland! Flag of United States Flag of Ireland Shamrock
7:17 pm · 17 Mar 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Pity we hadn't a few more at home like the Boyle Brothers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 17, 2021, 08:21:39 PM
He won't have a vote in the Referendum  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 08:28:49 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.

Credit where it's due, J70. You are big enough to admit the hypocrisy exists. While it's glaringly obvious to see it, many people (and there is abundance of evidence on this board alone) will perform the most spectacular, gold medal standard mental gymnastics to deny it.

I also appreciate your reasoned arguments about why some in the south are ambivilant to the partition of their own country. Were I typing this on computer, and were I not trying to relax with a drink, I'd be minded to put forward a more lengthy reply to your individual points but all I will say for now is to re-state a point I already made. Nationalists in the north, even those of a generation which never endured conflict, have the same day-to-day concerns as those in the south but also understand that:
(i) no matter what side of the border you live, its the same country of ours which was partitioned
(ii) This partitioning has been an economic, social and cultural disaster for the whole island
(iii) When there is such a firm sense of having been disowned and left to the wolves by one's own, it would be nice to feel like there might be some effort to make ammends, rather than double down on the abandonment by not heartily supporting reunification.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 08:31:59 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on March 17, 2021, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.

There is no doubt that the hand wringing hypocrisy of many politicians in the south is hard to stomach . This is a cause celebre of FFG, with self-preservation in mind in the midst of SF progress. That said , If SF want to get into power they are going to have to be more proactive in making links with others ie potential coalition partners . Regardless of the reasons behind the IRA campaign , there are several victims of that campaign , and a fulsome apology for the hurt caused to so many is the only way SF can  gain real respect from the middle ground.  Not least because It's an open goal for FFG & their media puppets to bring up IRA atrocities , when they need to. More importantly such an apology puts victims at the top of the agenda, where they deserve to be.
The IRA already did apologise for the civilian deaths it caused. 19 years ago.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot

Sure that would be to say that all armed campaigns are morally equivalent, because horrible things happen in all armed campaigns

It would be to say that the Nazi invasions of Poland and Russia were morally equivalent to the Allied campaign of invasion post D-Day

The pertinent comparison is between the dissos and the PIRA

No difference between them whatsoever - both futile campaigns of murder with no hope whatsoever of achieving their political aim - a united Ireland

And none of the Shinners here have ever admitted this

There's no difference between Omagh and what the PIRA did

None at all
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 09:04:21 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 17, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Such a sweeping statement when there was a civil war fought in the south over the terms of the treaty which left the 6 counties behind and in the present day opinion polls have shown a consistent desire for a UI in the 26
The politicians have a funny way of showing it. Micheal Martin couldn't come across more indifferent if he tried. For someone who is leader of a party that purports to be Republican, he seems more concerned about SF (and therefore delaying a UI) than he does about promoting reunification of this country. It confirms the impression many people in the north have about FF and FG, all they care about is power - much like the DUP.
A united Ireland is very much a fringe issue in the Republic - at best

It is a total non-issue at election time

The Republic voted to give up its territorial claim over the North in 1998

And so too did Nationalists in the North vote for it to do so

The economy, health, housing and taxes  were the main issues at the last election in the south. Brexit wasn't a factor and a united Ireland was irrelevant to the majority of people.

You think FF/FG are indifferent to reunification, but the reality is it's most of the country. Political parties won't focus their efforts on something that people don't care about and won't get them votes

For most people they want to see a united Ireland in theory but it's a minor issue compared with the likes of above

And it's to the eternal shame of any Irish person in the 26 counties if they regard the independence of their own country as "a minor issue". The sort of people that wouldn't know a principle if it jimped up and bit them in the ass.

Most people are concerned day to day with family, school, work, money, chasing women etc. And given that reunification has not been a live political issue or prospect for most people alive in the south, its hardly going to be at the forefront of their thinking, politically, especially for those living far from the border. The south is not the north, were unification is a majorly divisive topic and the Troubles were a real, everyday part of life. Most people in the south would support reunificiation in theory, and, IMO would happily endorse a united Ireland if it actually came down to it. For years though, its been neither divisive enough nor a sufficiently realistic prospect that it would be a subject of debate or emotion in the south.

The only person I ever had a debate with in my life about NI politics and a united Ireland was a protestant woman from the north I went out with years ago. Everyone else I knew was pretty much of the same mind: we wish the north could become/remain peaceful and normal, and if it every became a possibility, we'd like to see a united Ireland. Outside of that, there was nothing to get exercised about among the vast majority of Irish people in the south.
J70 that's quite a good summation of attitudes in the 26. Can't really argue against any of it, but like you say, the majority of people are in favour of reunification in principle, but have other pressing issues on their minds. Certainly from talking to relatives this seems to be the case. That said however it's  time parties in the Dail other than SF started agitating for it instead of against. Where we are now is not a final settlement. I think project NI has failed, Brexit has opened a can of worms and relations between UK and EU aren't going to improve anytime soon. The north is left in the middle and it's really time to start "circling the wagons" for want of a better term. Make hay and all that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 09:08:10 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 08:28:49 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.

Credit where it's due, J70. You are big enough to admit the hypocrisy exists. While it's glaringly obvious to see it, many people (and there is abundance of evidence on this board alone) will perform the most spectacular, gold medal standard mental gymnastics to deny it.

I also appreciate your reasoned arguments about why some in the south are ambivilant to the partition of their own country. Were I typing this on computer, and were I not trying to relax with a drink, I'd be minded to put forward a more lengthy reply to your individual points but all I will say for now is to re-state a point I already made. Nationalists in the north, even those of a generation which never endured conflict, have the same day-to-day concerns as those in the south but also understand that:
(i) no matter what side of the border you live, its the same country of ours which was partitioned
(ii) This partitioning has been an economic, social and cultural disaster for the whole island
(iii) When there is such a firm sense of having been disowned and left to the wolves by one's own, it would be nice to feel like there might be some effort to make ammends, rather than double down on the abandonment by not heartily supporting reunification.

How has partition been an economic disaster for the south? Ireland had a strong economy (pre covid) and it was growing annually. Our corporation tax rate has encouraged numerous multi nationals to base branches here and while people can question the amount of tax they pay, the taxes, spending etc of all the employees working for them help grow the economy on national and local levels
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 09:08:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot
Ok Sid, a number of British soldiers are ambushed by the IRA in their fight against British rule. They unmercifully emptied their magazines into these young men, brutally executed by the side of the road in cold blood.

I'm not telling you what county it happened in or what year.

Morally justified or not?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 09:09:48 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 17, 2021, 09:08:10 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 08:28:49 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.

Credit where it's due, J70. You are big enough to admit the hypocrisy exists. While it's glaringly obvious to see it, many people (and there is abundance of evidence on this board alone) will perform the most spectacular, gold medal standard mental gymnastics to deny it.

I also appreciate your reasoned arguments about why some in the south are ambivilant to the partition of their own country. Were I typing this on computer, and were I not trying to relax with a drink, I'd be minded to put forward a more lengthy reply to your individual points but all I will say for now is to re-state a point I already made. Nationalists in the north, even those of a generation which never endured conflict, have the same day-to-day concerns as those in the south but also understand that:
(i) no matter what side of the border you live, its the same country of ours which was partitioned
(ii) This partitioning has been an economic, social and cultural disaster for the whole island
(iii) When there is such a firm sense of having been disowned and left to the wolves by one's own, it would be nice to feel like there might be some effort to make ammends, rather than double down on the abandonment by not heartily supporting reunification.

How has partition been an economic disaster for the south? Ireland had a strong economy (pre covid) and it was growing annually. Our corporation tax rate has encouraged numerous multi nationals to base branches here and while people can question the amount of tax they pay, the taxes, spending etc of all the employees working for them help grow the economy on national and local levels
Ask the people in border counties
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 08:28:49 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.

Credit where it's due, J70. You are big enough to admit the hypocrisy exists. While it's glaringly obvious to see it, many people (and there is abundance of evidence on this board alone) will perform the most spectacular, gold medal standard mental gymnastics to deny it.

I also appreciate your reasoned arguments about why some in the south are ambivilant to the partition of their own country. Were I typing this on computer, and were I not trying to relax with a drink, I'd be minded to put forward a more lengthy reply to your individual points but all I will say for now is to re-state a point I already made. Nationalists in the north, even those of a generation which never endured conflict, have the same day-to-day concerns as those in the south but also understand that:
(i) no matter what side of the border you live, its the same country of ours which was partitioned
(ii) This partitioning has been an economic, social and cultural disaster for the whole island
(iii) When there is such a firm sense of having been disowned and left to the wolves by one's own, it would be nice to feel like there might be some effort to make ammends, rather than double down on the abandonment by not heartily supporting reunification.

The final point there is key to me.

As you said, northern nationalists were fed to the wolves. There's never been any contrition or even acknowledgement of this from the Free State. Instead after they left a beleaguered people to fight their own battle against a violent sectarian pogrom they had the temerity and arrogance to pontificate about northern nationalists fighting back in a similar manner to the FS.

The hypocrisy with history down south is off the charts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 09:17:09 PM
I would also say that Provisional campaign had a lot more justification than the IRA's campaign during the WOI.

Of course people down south who never had to experience British state brutality wouldn't have the first clue what they are talking about.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 09:08:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot
Ok Sid, a number of British soldiers are ambushed by the IRA in their fight against British rule. They unmercifully emptied their magazines into these young men, brutally executed by the side of the road in cold blood.

I'm not telling you what county it happened in or what year.

Morally justified or not?
You're resorting to crude reductionism in an attempt to justify a 28 campaign of futile murder

Horrible things happen in all conflicts - but that's not how we judge them in the round

A plausible, arguable moral case can be made for the War of Independence because it was short, sharp, had a clear strategy was and successful - it got most of what the people waging that war wanted

The PIRA never had any hope of getting anything they wanted - and they didn't

They just kept on murdering for 28 years, murdering in a vacuum, like ISIS

And they sacrificed their own for no reason

The deaths of the hunger strikers, for instance, were totally futile

Now, what's the difference between Omagh and Enniskillen or Warrington?

The answer is nothing

To my knowledge, nobody here supports the Real IRA or justifies what they did at Omagh

Yet they justify the PIRA's 28 year campaign of murder

That's remarkable cognitive dissonance

Incidentally, Bernadette Sands McKevitt, the wife of Michael McKevitt, the Omagh bomber, was the sister of Bobby Sands

So if anybody had a handle on the true mindset of Bobby Sands and what he truly believed, it was her

The SF/PIRA movement as a whole moved away from the ideology of Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers when they decided to surrender - I suppose you could say they did the dirt on Sands and people like Brendan Hughes

I'm glad they did that - because peace followed from it - but it's pretty unarguable that the likes of McKevitt and his wife were the true believers and stayed true to the ideology

SF and the vast majority of the PIRA who abided by the ceasefire abandoned their ideology

So what was it all for?

Nothing







Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 09:49:50 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
You're resorting to crude reductionism

Says the man who accused me of being "into dead children" and "supporting blowing up children" because I believe the IRA campaign was justified.
::)

Away and crawl into a hole you dope.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on March 17, 2021, 10:14:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 09:17:09 PM
I would also say that Provisional campaign had a lot more justification than the IRA's campaign during the WOI.

Of course people down south who never had to experience British state brutality wouldn't have the first clue what they are talking about.
I wouldn't say it had any more, but it was the same fight and certainly equally justified.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 10:31:10 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 17, 2021, 10:14:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 09:17:09 PM
I would also say that Provisional campaign had a lot more justification than the IRA's campaign during the WOI.

Of course people down south who never had to experience British state brutality wouldn't have the first clue what they are talking about.
I wouldn't say it had any more, but it was the same fight and certainly equally justified.

In the context of what was happening, I'd say it had more. Nationalists had been abandoned in a sectarian state with a unionist government and loyalist pogrom who had shown total disregard for their rights. Burned out of their homes, beaten off the streets and murdered in broad daylight and nobody willing to step in. It was totally inevitable and the FFG have blood on their hands regarding that and never once have they shown contrition or acknowledgement to the nationalists of the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 11:39:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 09:08:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot
Ok Sid, a number of British soldiers are ambushed by the IRA in their fight against British rule. They unmercifully emptied their magazines into these young men, brutally executed by the side of the road in cold blood.

I'm not telling you what county it happened in or what year.

Morally justified or not?
You're resorting to crude reductionism in an attempt to justify a 28 campaign of futile murder

Horrible things happen in all conflicts - but that's not how we judge them in the round

A plausible, arguable moral case can be made for the War of Independence because it was short, sharp, had a clear strategy was and successful - it got most of what the people waging that war wanted

The PIRA never had any hope of getting anything they wanted - and they didn't

They just kept on murdering for 28 years, murdering in a vacuum, like ISIS

And they sacrificed their own for no reason

The deaths of the hunger strikers, for instance, were totally futile

Now, what's the difference between Omagh and Enniskillen or Warrington?

The answer is nothing

To my knowledge, nobody here supports the Real IRA or justifies what they did at Omagh

Yet they justify the PIRA's 28 year campaign of murder

That's remarkable cognitive dissonance

Incidentally, Bernadette Sands McKevitt, the wife of Michael McKevitt, the Omagh bomber, was the sister of Bobby Sands

So if anybody had a handle on the true mindset of Bobby Sands and what he truly believed, it was her

The SF/PIRA movement as a whole moved away from the ideology of Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers when they decided to surrender - I suppose you could say they did the dirt on Sands and people like Brendan Hughes

I'm glad they did that - because peace followed from it - but it's pretty unarguable that the likes of McKevitt and his wife were the true believers and stayed true to the ideology

SF and the vast majority of the PIRA who abided by the ceasefire abandoned their ideology

So what was it all for?

Nothing
I note you are unable to answer my simple question.

I'm reluctant to give you a history lesson or try and use specific  events to further my argument but generally speaking, the Provos weren't the problem, they were a symptom of the problem. I absolutely resent your assertion that Irish men and women had no moral justification in taking up the gun while they were butchered by Loyalists, RUC and the army.

You're anti-Republican rhetoric is all well and good but it doesn't disguise what people had to live through while the 26 county government sat on their hands and did nothing.

The circumstances from 1969 onwards allowed the Provos to blossom, they went from what was originally an organisation that emerged to defend people from Loyalist AND RUC attacks (imagine the f**king police helping loyalists burn down your home) to one that proactively used guerilla warfare against a much larger, better equipped  and technologically-advanced enemy.

There was actually an excellent article by Declan Bogue in the Irish Examiner, he interviewed a few of the Antrim players from their successful 1969 All Ireland winning U21 side. I'd love you to look these fellow Gaels in the eye and tell them they were suffering from cognitive dissonance.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/arid-40244966.html



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 12:34:17 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 17, 2021, 09:49:50 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
You're resorting to crude reductionism

Says the man who accused me of being "into dead children" and "supporting blowing up children" because I believe the IRA campaign was justified.
::)

Away and crawl into a hole you dope.
Well you've just said again you believe the PIRA campaign was justified

It was a 28 year campaign of nihilism and murder, including the murder of children

If somebody said they supported ISIS but were against the beheadings and the bombs and the destruction they'd be laughed at

The personal abuse of me is just showing up your lack of argument



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 12:43:32 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 11:39:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 09:08:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot
Ok Sid, a number of British soldiers are ambushed by the IRA in their fight against British rule. They unmercifully emptied their magazines into these young men, brutally executed by the side of the road in cold blood.

I'm not telling you what county it happened in or what year.

Morally justified or not?
You're resorting to crude reductionism in an attempt to justify a 28 campaign of futile murder

Horrible things happen in all conflicts - but that's not how we judge them in the round

A plausible, arguable moral case can be made for the War of Independence because it was short, sharp, had a clear strategy was and successful - it got most of what the people waging that war wanted

The PIRA never had any hope of getting anything they wanted - and they didn't

They just kept on murdering for 28 years, murdering in a vacuum, like ISIS

And they sacrificed their own for no reason

The deaths of the hunger strikers, for instance, were totally futile

Now, what's the difference between Omagh and Enniskillen or Warrington?

The answer is nothing

To my knowledge, nobody here supports the Real IRA or justifies what they did at Omagh

Yet they justify the PIRA's 28 year campaign of murder

That's remarkable cognitive dissonance

Incidentally, Bernadette Sands McKevitt, the wife of Michael McKevitt, the Omagh bomber, was the sister of Bobby Sands

So if anybody had a handle on the true mindset of Bobby Sands and what he truly believed, it was her

The SF/PIRA movement as a whole moved away from the ideology of Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers when they decided to surrender - I suppose you could say they did the dirt on Sands and people like Brendan Hughes

I'm glad they did that - because peace followed from it - but it's pretty unarguable that the likes of McKevitt and his wife were the true believers and stayed true to the ideology

SF and the vast majority of the PIRA who abided by the ceasefire abandoned their ideology

So what was it all for?

Nothing
I note you are unable to answer my simple question.

I'm reluctant to give you a history lesson or try and use specific  events to further my argument but generally speaking, the Provos weren't the problem, they were a symptom of the problem. I absolutely resent your assertion that Irish men and women had no moral justification in taking up the gun while they were butchered by Loyalists, RUC and the army.

You're anti-Republican rhetoric is all well and good but it doesn't disguise what people had to live through while the 26 county government sat on their hands and did nothing.

The circumstances from 1969 onwards allowed the Provos to blossom, they went from what was originally an organisation that emerged to defend people from Loyalist AND RUC attacks (imagine the f**king police helping loyalists burn down your home) to one that proactively used guerilla warfare against a much larger, better equipped  and technologically-advanced enemy.

There was actually an excellent article by Declan Bogue in the Irish Examiner, he interviewed a few of the Antrim players from their successful 1969 All Ireland winning U21 side. I'd love you to look these fellow Gaels in the eye and tell them they were suffering from cognitive dissonance.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/arid-40244966.html

Your question isn't a good faith one

I don't need a history lesson, thanks

The PIRA weren't the problem before they existed, once they existed they became a major part of the problem, probably the biggest part

I absolutely would tell anybody who supported the 28 year campaign of nihilism and murder that they were suffering from cognitive dissonance to their face

I'd tell them a bit more too

I'm not cowed by PIRA supporters trying to lecture me that blowing the heads off innocent children was necessary or a glorious blow for Ireland



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on March 18, 2021, 12:49:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot

Sure that would be to say that all armed campaigns are morally equivalent, because horrible things happen in all armed campaigns

It would be to say that the Nazi invasions of Poland and Russia were morally equivalent to the Allied campaign of invasion post D-Day

The pertinent comparison is between the dissos and the PIRA

No difference between them whatsoever - both futile campaigns of murder with no hope whatsoever of achieving their political aim - a united Ireland

And none of the Shinners here have ever admitted this

There's no difference between Omagh and what the PIRA did

None at all

Sid. I respect you but I disagree wholeheartedly here. The only difference was semtex wasn't available back then. These men who were prepared to give up everything and be they old new or any letter IRA did not do it for fun. To write of these people as psychopathic killers devoid of emotion needs questioned. We have and had an absolute right to meet the violence and inequality imppossesd upon us with violence. Its s stsndsrd operating procedure for any nation. The British state literally stole our nation and continue to hold right over a part of it. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable because a certain amount of time has passed can fkc right off. If I raped your relative no amount of time would ever make it acceptable. Ireland unfree will never be at peace,  the words of wiser men than me. Excuse typos.. done on a phone
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:13:43 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 18, 2021, 12:49:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot

Sure that would be to say that all armed campaigns are morally equivalent, because horrible things happen in all armed campaigns

It would be to say that the Nazi invasions of Poland and Russia were morally equivalent to the Allied campaign of invasion post D-Day

The pertinent comparison is between the dissos and the PIRA

No difference between them whatsoever - both futile campaigns of murder with no hope whatsoever of achieving their political aim - a united Ireland

And none of the Shinners here have ever admitted this

There's no difference between Omagh and what the PIRA did

None at all

Sid. I respect you but I disagree wholeheartedly here. The only difference was semtex wasn't available back then. These men who were prepared to give up everything and be they old new or any letter IRA did not do it for fun. To write of these people as psychopathic killers devoid of emotion needs questioned. We have and had an absolute right to meet the violence and inequality imppossesd upon us with violence. Its s stsndsrd operating procedure for any nation. The British state literally stole our nation and continue to hold right over a part of it. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable because a certain amount of time has passed can fkc right off. If I raped your relative no amount of time would ever make it acceptable. Ireland unfree will never be at peace,  the words of wiser men than me. Excuse typos.. done on a phone

I'm sure the old IRA would have used semtex had it been available to them

The difference is, they knew they could win and they did win, they didn't have any intention of a 28 year war

The PIRA never stood a chance of winning, they could never win, and they knew it

Therefore 28 years of bombing and murder cannot be justified

Land is land, and Ireland is not unique as regards territorial disputes

Since the beginning of time people have migrated and invaded, borders have changed

Part of what is now Russia used to be Germany, part of what is now Poland used to be Germany, part of what is now France used to be Germany, all of what is now Kosovo used to be Serbia, part of what is now Romania used to be Austria-Hungary, part of what is now Ukraine used to be Poland, all of what is now Ukraine used to be the USSR, or colloquially, Russia, and many Russians believe Ukraine should't exist

What is a country? What is a nation?

There is nothing inherent in nature that says an all-Ireland state should exist or is natural

States are artificial creations



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on March 18, 2021, 01:27:59 AM
Sid. We were shit on. From a great height. The first time I got spat on I was 8 years old. I was called a fenian **** every single day walking home from primary school and had to run home to avoid a kicking getting off the bus from high school more times than I care to remember. Coming home from football training on a Friday night was a minefield when our friendly neighbours were parading. I don't care about Germany or Poland. I care that a union flag was placed on my grandmothers house because my uncle happened to share the name of a sf Councillor. I care that my brother was beat to a pulp by loyalists one night walking home half cut. I care that my friends cousin and brothers mate was beaten to death at 16 years old and his body hidden in a f**king sheough. Google James Morgan county down. So yes I f**king supported the PIRA.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:39:17 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 18, 2021, 01:27:59 AM
Sid. We were shit on. From a great hight. The first time I got spat on I was 8 years old. I was called a fenian **** every single day walking home from primary school and had to run home to avoid a kicking getting off the bus from high school more times than I care to remember. Coming home from football training on a Friday night was a minefield when our friendly neighbours were parading. I don't care about Germany or Poland. I care that a union flag was placed on my grandmothers house because my uncle happened to share the name of a sf Councillor. I care that my brother was beat to a pulp by loyalists one night walking home half cut. I care that my friends cousin and brothers mate was beaten to death at 16 years old and his body hidden in a f**king sheough. Google James Morgan county down. So yes I f**king supported the PIRA.
I appreciate that Catholics were shat on from a height

But there was an alternative to 28 years of the PIRA, it was disciplined political struggle, international agitation, mass civil disobedience, education and self-empowerment through community organisations

Catholics had righteousness and justice on their side

A 28 year campaign of violence did not make things better for any part of society, it never could, it made people outside the North tune out and want nothing to do with the concept of justice for Catholics, and it did not produce a united Ireland

It produced ethnic cleansing, siloing, entrenchment and incalculable heartache



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on March 18, 2021, 01:40:58 AM
I married a lass who was from the protestant tradition. We were walking round the town I grew up in one night. The local orange Lodge were putting up their arch, as they do each summer. One of them recognised her and asked what was she doing with a fenian. He then spat in her face.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 05:41:43 AM
No point trying to talk logic and reason to Sid. You can try to explain to him all day about why many ordinary people, living through extraordinary times, felt the IRA campaign was justified. I tried before to have that adult conversation with him and to explain why I felt it was justified. He ignored everything I said and accused me of supporting it because I'm "into dead children" and because I like to see "children blown up". In fact, his "into dead children" bit was his first engagement with me after I offered him my condolences and prayers on the loss of his father.

That's the mentality of who you're trying to engage with. A sick f**k who repeatedly envokes the concept of child suffering and death to attack others on a discussion board. He even recently randomly claimed that another poster accused him of "child rape" ffs. Do not waste your time or energy with that sort of individual.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 07:35:01 AM
Sid doesn't believe what he's typing guys.


He was a vocal backer of the Provo campaign up until about four or five years back. He has now backtracked and engaged on revisionism on The Troubles because he has changed his mind on SF current policies.

I think it's important that people know Sid doesn't believe what he types.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on March 18, 2021, 07:47:51 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 18, 2021, 01:40:58 AM
I married a lass who was from the protestant tradition. We were walking round the town I grew up in one night. The local orange Lodge were putting up their arch, as they do each summer. One of them recognised her and asked what was she doing with a fenian. He then spat in her face.

Nice.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 08:01:00 AM
Just for clarification, Sid and I posted on a different forum for years back.

We agreed on a lot of things back then so I do know his views now are completely at odds. I know what he is saying now is both vindictive and emotional at his personal opinion with the current actions of SF. He's entitled to criticise the party but when he engages in revisionism of The Troubles is another things.

Here are some of his former viewpoints. The Troubles ended in 1998 yet Sidney was a supporter of the Provisional IRA campaign until about 3 or 4 years ago.

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/3/4/34651b37901d18f34d161ccb1a5a54ced498bf7e.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/4/3/43de3301ec4b1f7f2f3f3278644164d647980207.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/b/db9aa37719d2a172bf892a4cc6a2ed4ddf0e1851.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/3/6/36464e09f800b8159c6460b44d4fca57e0585685.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/a/e/ae035908f5295f2c867112fec5aed52d12039614.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/e/3/e3bd32173f416215484a42aba09e9b77641d0de2.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/c/d/cd9d513e7ac64b8d5ade61c9960760ab55a6da31.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/1/0/10964dbf30b83b6328d0ea99a59ebc16f0b415f7.png)

So when people engage in his crazy revisionism of The Troubles and the context around they should be fully knowledgeable that they come from an emotional and embittered place, that he in fact doesn't even believe those views himself. It's political point scoring over a conflict he had no personal experience of.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:57:38 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 05:41:43 AM
No point trying to talk logic and reason to Sid. You can try to explain to him all day about why many ordinary people, living through extraordinary times, felt the IRA campaign was justified. I tried before to have that adult conversation with him and to explain why I felt it was justified. He ignored everything I said and accused me of supporting it because I'm "into dead children" and because I like to see "children blown up". In fact, his "into dead children" bit was his first engagement with me after I offered him my condolences and prayers on the loss of his father.

That's the mentality of who you're trying to engage with. A sick f**k who repeatedly envokes the concept of child suffering and death to attack others on a discussion board. He even recently randomly claimed that another poster accused him of "child rape" ffs. Do not waste your time or energy with that sort of individual.
Personally I think it's long past time for a banning for Snapchap

He makes no effort at all at reasonable discussion and just personally abuses me while inverting reality to claim he is a victim

Like seriously, what sort of person tries to airbrush the suffering of children from history

Inflicting suffering and death on children was an integral part of the PIRA campaign

He uses the words "sick f**k", apparently with zero sense of irony or self awareness

Goebbels couldn't have done any better than that

It's frustrating when a poster behaves in this ultra-narcissistic manner



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 10:58:13 AM
https://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-shared-island-unit-5375878-Mar2021/?jrnl_lg=1
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 11:22:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:57:38 AM
Personally I think it's long past time for a banning for Snapchap

He makes no effort at all at reasonable discussion

You accused me of being into dead children.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 11:33:08 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 10:58:13 AM
https://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-shared-island-unit-5375878-Mar2021/?jrnl_lg=1

To quote political commentator, Brian Feeney (former SDLP Cllr, co-author of 'Lost Lives'):

Quote"It's true that Unionists usually only support the parts of laws they like, but in this case the GFA is an international agreement carrying legally binding requirements on the UK and the Republic. Demanding a referendum is a right, not wishful thinking.

That's why it's astonishing that Taoiseach Micheál Martin remains silent on all these matters. The last time he addressed the question he banished talk of a referendum for five years, that is the length of this Irish government if it lasts that long. Instead, in an obvious ploy, he substituted a meaningless 'shared island unit' comprising four civil servants which turns out to be even less than a talking shop already rejected by Unionists. His plan was transparently to counteract Sinn Féin's demand for a Border Poll. The result rather has been that Fianna Fáil has walked off the pitch and left it to SF.

The lifetime of the 'shared island unit' is coterminous with Martin's time as taoiseach which will turn out to be two wasted years on the constitutional scene with FF, allegedly 'the republican party', left flat footed and silent as you'd expect Fine Gael to be. Events and thinking are moving fast, but thanks to Martin's pathological terror of Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil is being buffeted in the slipstream. With senior Unionists talking of the need to prepare for a Border Poll and English politicians talking about the need for UK constitutional change, it's a disgrace the Irish government hasn't a word to say.

What hypocrisy for Irish politicians to remind the UK it's a joint guarantor of the GFA when Irish governments sing dumb on a central component of the same GFA. Still, to an extent there's consistency. No Irish government has given a second's thought to any practical means of advancing what should be their constitutional imperative, uniting the country.

What is different is that Micheál Martin and the DUP leader are united in refusing to discuss a referendum."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 11:46:02 AM
The Irish Government's prime Constitutional imperative and what they are elected for is to run the State.
The Good Friday Agreement sets out the criteria for holding a "Border poll" which unfortunately is in the gift of the Brit Secretary of state.
That however is what a large majority of the Irish people voted for in 1998.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 11:59:15 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 11:22:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:57:38 AM
Personally I think it's long past time for a banning for Snapchap

He makes no effort at all at reasonable discussion

You accused me of being into dead children.
You openly support and justify a decades long terrorist campaign which slaughtered children

Therefore it's 100% fair comment

May I remind you that you call me "sick f**k", "sub human", and many more

Based on nothing

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 11:46:02 AM
The Irish Government's prime Constitutional imperative and what they are elected for is to run the State.
The Good Friday Agreement sets out the criteria for holding a "Border poll" which unfortunately is in the gift of the Brit Secretary of state.
That however is what a large majority of the Irish people voted for in 1998.

People in the south are constantly being told we don't know what it's like living up in the North. You now want people in the south to call for a border poll on how the people in the north should live. It's up to the UK government/NI assembly to call for a vote on remaining as part of the UK. With SF/DUP as divided as they've ever been I don't see a border poll being called anytime soon and there's certainly no pressure being put on the Irish government by anyone in the south to look for one
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:07:50 PM
On SF and united Ireland. Heard Matt Carthy on radio last week or prior to that. They discussing the protocol and it was put to him that the difficulties that will lie ahead convincing loyalists to accept a referendum if the vote is marginal with only a % say in it. If they can't accept the protocol, how will they accept something so much bigger.

I found his response telling and that could lead to issues in any referendum. Firstly he stated that any margin win has to be accepted and is in the GFA as been accepted.

Then he said that a new Ireland has to be projected for the referendum and that it's not merely a case of the 6 joining the 26 as a 32 county republic. He said a new Ireland has to be set out and lots of changes will be required and he referred to a New Ireland again.

Obviously we are a long way off yet but will take lot to identify what this New Ireland is and when it laid out in black & white it may not be as easy a sell in the 26 as some may think.

Ireland is very fractured politically. We've now it appears 3 main powers who may not form a government even as a pair. Smaller parties and independents hold so many seats. The government that has to make the vision of this new Ireland will have plenty of opposition at the time before they even head north to reach some consensus on it up their. We've seen the SF north differs from SF south and I very much doubt if the unionist parties will even engage on any potential structure of when a United ireland will look like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 11:46:02 AM
The Irish Government's prime Constitutional imperative and what they are elected for is to run the State.
The Good Friday Agreement sets out the criteria for holding a "Border poll" which unfortunately is in the gift of the Brit Secretary of state.
That however is what a large majority of the Irish people voted for in 1998.

People in the south are constantly being told we don't know what it's like living up in the North. You now want people in the south to call for a border poll on how the people in the north should live. It's up to the UK government/NI assembly to call for a vote on remaining as part of the UK. With SF/DUP as divided as they've ever been I don't see a border poll being called anytime soon and there's certainly no pressure being put on the Irish government by anyone in the south to look for one

There is a general consensus across the board in the north and in London that a border poll will happen in the relatively near future. Would you say that FFG Governments are being responsible by refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a poll, let alone plan for a potential positive outcome?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:15:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 05:03:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
Christ Almighty. The vast majority of nationalist envy the South for having freedom and independence. there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight. it is true that some in the Republic view the North as a foreign country, possibly a sizeable few but I'd say that given the right circumstances and that is a two way street, unity would be no issue. Bating our Southern brothers and constance reference to the Freestate does not help.

And what does the esablishment figureheads of the 26 consistently playing political games with victims of the troubles achieve?

Northern nationalists have been treated with contempt from the southern counterparts for decades, we shouldn't be afraid to call it out for what it is.
By some but not all, and don't judge all politicians by Micheál Martin or Leo.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 09:08:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot
Ok Sid, a number of British soldiers are ambushed by the IRA in their fight against British rule. They unmercifully emptied their magazines into these young men, brutally executed by the side of the road in cold blood.

I'm not telling you what county it happened in or what year.

Morally justified or not?
You're resorting to crude reductionism in an attempt to justify a 28 campaign of futile murder

Horrible things happen in all conflicts - but that's not how we judge them in the round

A plausible, arguable moral case can be made for the War of Independence because it was short, sharp, had a clear strategy was and successful - it got most of what the people waging that war wanted

The PIRA never had any hope of getting anything they wanted - and they didn't

They just kept on murdering for 28 years, murdering in a vacuum, like ISIS

And they sacrificed their own for no reason

The deaths of the hunger strikers, for instance, were totally futile

Now, what's the difference between Omagh and Enniskillen or Warrington?

The answer is nothing

To my knowledge, nobody here supports the Real IRA or justifies what they did at Omagh

Yet they justify the PIRA's 28 year campaign of murder

That's remarkable cognitive dissonance

Incidentally, Bernadette Sands McKevitt, the wife of Michael McKevitt, the Omagh bomber, was the sister of Bobby Sands

So if anybody had a handle on the true mindset of Bobby Sands and what he truly believed, it was her

The SF/PIRA movement as a whole moved away from the ideology of Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers when they decided to surrender - I suppose you could say they did the dirt on Sands and people like Brendan Hughes

I'm glad they did that - because peace followed from it - but it's pretty unarguable that the likes of McKevitt and his wife were the true believers and stayed true to the ideology

SF and the vast majority of the PIRA who abided by the ceasefire abandoned their ideology

So what was it all for?

Nothing
Utter hypocrisy
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on March 18, 2021, 12:18:18 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:07:50 PM
On SF and united Ireland. Heard Matt Carthy on radio last week or prior to that. They discussing the protocol and it was put to him that the difficulties that will lie ahead convincing loyalists to accept a referendum if the vote is marginal with only a % say in it. If they can't accept the protocol, how will they accept something so much bigger.

I found his response telling and that could lead to issues in any referendum. Firstly he stated that any margin win has to be accepted and is in the GFA as been accepted.

Then he said that a new Ireland has to be projected for the referendum and that it's not merely a case of the 6 joining the 26 as a 32 county republic. He said a new Ireland has to be set out and lots of changes will be required and he referred to a New Ireland again.

Obviously we are a long way off yet but will take lot to identify what this New Ireland is and when it laid out in black & white it may not be as easy a sell in the 26 as some may think.

Ireland is very fractured politically. We've now it appears 3 main powers who may not form a government even as a pair. Smaller parties and independents hold so many seats. The government that has to make the vision of this new Ireland will have plenty of opposition at the time before they even head north to reach some consensus on it up their. We've seen the SF north differs from SF south and I very much doubt if the unionist parties will even engage on any potential structure of when a United ireland will look like.

Lose a referendum and what are their alternative?

1.Re-partition
2. Take up arms
3. Mass emmigration

1 and 2 will go nowhere as for 3, I hope most have the wit to stay and make things work and not leave with Arlene
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 12:19:54 PM
Strangely enough, in a hypothetical unification referendum in the Republic, I expect that there would actually be some push back against unification from some people who vote Sinn Fein

The sort who is a habitual protest voter, terminally cynical about everything, who hates politics and politicians, who has a propensity to believe in conspiracies and all that

Some of them would vote against unification just to spite the Fine Gaelers and Fianna Failers who would be advocating it

The form of any putative united Ireland to be voted on would also be an issue

In the Australian Republic referendum of 1999, a split in the Republican camp - with some of them demanding a greater purity of Republicanism than what was on offer, led to the monarchists winning

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 18, 2021, 12:20:18 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:07:50 PM
On SF and united Ireland. Heard Matt Carthy on radio last week or prior to that. They discussing the protocol and it was put to him that the difficulties that will lie ahead convincing loyalists to accept a referendum if the vote is marginal with only a % say in it. If they can't accept the protocol, how will they accept something so much bigger.

I found his response telling and that could lead to issues in any referendum. Firstly he stated that any margin win has to be accepted and is in the GFA as been accepted.

Then he said that a new Ireland has to be projected for the referendum and that it's not merely a case of the 6 joining the 26 as a 32 county republic. He said a new Ireland has to be set out and lots of changes will be required and he referred to a New Ireland again.

Obviously we are a long way off yet but will take lot to identify what this New Ireland is and when it laid out in black & white it may not be as easy a sell in the 26 as some may think.

Ireland is very fractured politically. We've now it appears 3 main powers who may not form a government even as a pair. Smaller parties and independents hold so many seats. The government that has to make the vision of this new Ireland will have plenty of opposition at the time before they even head north to reach some consensus on it up their. We've seen the SF north differs from SF south and I very much doubt if the unionist parties will even engage on any potential structure of when a United ireland will look like.

Unionists (I'm going to call Alliance middle grounders here) are in the minority in NI and that has to be remembered.

For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.

It's all to play for.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 12:21:25 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:13:16 PM

There is a general consensus across the board in the north and in London that a border poll will happen in the relatively near future. Would you say that FFG Governments are being responsible by refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a poll, let alone plan for a potential positive outcome?
There isn't
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:25:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 17, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
Angelo mentioned the hypocrisy of the south with respect our celebrating the brutal War of Independence and civil war, while abhorring the role and conduct of the IRA in the Troubles.

I think its a fair point and one I've never personally been able to reconcile.

Maybe its the distance and abstractness thing again. Its easier to revere and honour battles and brutality from the distant past than the violent, bloody mayhem and sorrow you're seeing on the TV and in the papers every day. Or maybe the founding myths and celebrating 1916 and all that is just jingoistic lip service.
Most Northern Nationalists did not condone or support the IRA campaign, many would have been ambivalent with regard to it but only a minority outright supported it. But one thing is clear, in the same way as the war of independence brought the Brits to the table and got concessions, Unionists under pressure from the Brits signed up in part to the GFA. That pressure would not have happened without the bombings in Britain. Unionism has not changed in 100 years. Hume could not have delivered the GFA without Adams and the army council. Just look at Sunningdale.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 18, 2021, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 18, 2021, 12:20:18 PM
For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.
.

And while people slag off the FFG parties, they have delivered a prosperous economy which provides many of these things that this group wants, something SF would never have done. The retort to this is that this only benefits the few, but this is not true, although some bad decisions have caused problems in housing etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 18, 2021, 12:20:18 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:07:50 PM
On SF and united Ireland. Heard Matt Carthy on radio last week or prior to that. They discussing the protocol and it was put to him that the difficulties that will lie ahead convincing loyalists to accept a referendum if the vote is marginal with only a % say in it. If they can't accept the protocol, how will they accept something so much bigger.

I found his response telling and that could lead to issues in any referendum. Firstly he stated that any margin win has to be accepted and is in the GFA as been accepted.

Then he said that a new Ireland has to be projected for the referendum and that it's not merely a case of the 6 joining the 26 as a 32 county republic. He said a new Ireland has to be set out and lots of changes will be required and he referred to a New Ireland again.

Obviously we are a long way off yet but will take lot to identify what this New Ireland is and when it laid out in black & white it may not be as easy a sell in the 26 as some may think.

Ireland is very fractured politically. We've now it appears 3 main powers who may not form a government even as a pair. Smaller parties and independents hold so many seats. The government that has to make the vision of this new Ireland will have plenty of opposition at the time before they even head north to reach some consensus on it up their. We've seen the SF north differs from SF south and I very much doubt if the unionist parties will even engage on any potential structure of when a United ireland will look like.

Unionists (I'm going to call Alliance middle grounders here) are in the minority in NI and that has to be remembered.

For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.

It's all to play for.

That's it exactly. So much to even arrive at before a referendum on the table.

And we seen with Brexit how complex these negotiations and discussions can be. How will any agreement be arrived at through a coalition Government, of whatever making that will be at the time, that will be constantly attacked by opposition and even within from the gov own TDs and backbenchers.

It won't be pretty as the main issues will be how people are impacted and nowadays we see it's not hard to upset people who don't see past their own front door.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2021, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 18, 2021, 12:20:18 PM
For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.
.

And while people slag off the FFG parties, they have delivered a prosperous economy which provides many of these things that this group wants, something SF would never have done. The retort to this is that this only benefits the few, but this is not true, although some bad decisions have caused problems in housing etc.

This may be true to a certain extent but nowadays people don't see it. They want everything and blame those high up if they don't have it. They don't want to pay taxes but want all the services. And they don't want to want to wait. They want it now.

There is plenty of issues but the sense of entitlement is heightened.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:30:39 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:07:50 PM
Firstly he stated that any margin win has to be accepted and is in the GFA as been accepted.
And he is correct. Despite what Micheal Martin & co suggest, the provision in the GFA is for a simple majority. Micheal in particular seems to relish in repeating that he favours the Seamus Mallon approach. Mallon felt there should not be a border poll until the majority of unionists would vote for unity. Never, in other words. Because anyone who votes for a united Ireland, by definition, is not a unionist. The same Micheal Martin was yesterday trying to piggyback on John Hume's legacy and implied that Hume was of a similar view on a border poll. In reality, this is what Hume had to say about the Seamus Mallon model:
"[Political Unionist] pride is expressed in archaic supremacism...The veto on British policy which they always had, and which goes to the heart of our problem here, has gone and is not coming back...The loss [of veto] is uncomfortable for their leaders, for while they held that privileged position they never had to be politicians or exercise the art of politics, which is the art of representing one's own view while treating others with fairness. For traditional Unionism in Northern Ireland, other points of view have never actually existed." - John Hume

Quote from: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:07:50 PM
Then he said that a new Ireland has to be projected for the referendum and that it's not merely a case of the 6 joining the 26 as a 32 county republic. He said a new Ireland has to be set out and lots of changes will be required and he referred to a New Ireland again.
Again, he is correct.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 12:31:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 08:01:00 AM
Just for clarification, Sid and I posted on a different forum for years back.

We agreed on a lot of things back then so I do know his views now are completely at odds. I know what he is saying now is both vindictive and emotional at his personal opinion with the current actions of SF. He's entitled to criticise the party but when he engages in revisionism of The Troubles is another things.

Here are some of his former viewpoints. The Troubles ended in 1998 yet Sidney was a supporter of the Provisional IRA campaign until about 3 or 4 years ago.

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/3/4/34651b37901d18f34d161ccb1a5a54ced498bf7e.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/4/3/43de3301ec4b1f7f2f3f3278644164d647980207.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/b/db9aa37719d2a172bf892a4cc6a2ed4ddf0e1851.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/3/6/36464e09f800b8159c6460b44d4fca57e0585685.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/a/e/ae035908f5295f2c867112fec5aed52d12039614.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/e/3/e3bd32173f416215484a42aba09e9b77641d0de2.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/c/d/cd9d513e7ac64b8d5ade61c9960760ab55a6da31.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/1/0/10964dbf30b83b6328d0ea99a59ebc16f0b415f7.png)

So when people engage in his crazy revisionism of The Troubles and the context around they should be fully knowledgeable that they come from an emotional and embittered place, that he in fact doesn't even believe those views himself. It's political point scoring over a conflict he had no personal experience of.
Contested??
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 18, 2021, 12:32:57 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2021, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 18, 2021, 12:20:18 PM
For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.
.

And while people slag off the FFG parties, they have delivered a prosperous economy which provides many of these things that this group wants, something SF would never have done. The retort to this is that this only benefits the few, but this is not true, although some bad decisions have caused problems in housing etc.

This may be true to a certain extent but nowadays people don't see it. They want everything and blame those high up if they don't have it. They don't want to pay taxes but want all the services. And they don't want to want to wait. They want it now.

There is plenty of issues but the sense of entitlement is heightened.

A lot of people in the middle of the road in the North are people who pay their own way and who realise that things have to be paid for.
Those who are aware that you cannot eat a flag.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 12:33:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:15:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 05:03:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
Christ Almighty. The vast majority of nationalist envy the South for having freedom and independence. there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight. it is true that some in the Republic view the North as a foreign country, possibly a sizeable few but I'd say that given the right circumstances and that is a two way street, unity would be no issue. Bating our Southern brothers and constance reference to the Freestate does not help.

And what does the esablishment figureheads of the 26 consistently playing political games with victims of the troubles achieve?

Northern nationalists have been treated with contempt from the southern counterparts for decades, we shouldn't be afraid to call it out for what it is.
By some but not all, and don't judge all politicians by Micheál Martin or Leo.

Where have the dissenting voices in FFG been on their leader's words?

That's the issue, it's party policy for FFG to politicise The Troubles and cynically dismiss the plight northern nationalists faced. So I think we can judge all FFG politicians on the way they have failed to fight this narrative and policy within their own parties.

FFG leaders will stand up in the Dail and demand SF go into government with the DUP but both parties will refuse to talk to SF when it comes to forming a government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:34:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:39:17 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 18, 2021, 01:27:59 AM
Sid. We were shit on. From a great hight. The first time I got spat on I was 8 years old. I was called a fenian **** every single day walking home from primary school and had to run home to avoid a kicking getting off the bus from high school more times than I care to remember. Coming home from football training on a Friday night was a minefield when our friendly neighbours were parading. I don't care about Germany or Poland. I care that a union flag was placed on my grandmothers house because my uncle happened to share the name of a sf Councillor. I care that my brother was beat to a pulp by loyalists one night walking home half cut. I care that my friends cousin and brothers mate was beaten to death at 16 years old and his body hidden in a f**king sheough. Google James Morgan county down. So yes I f**king supported the PIRA.
I appreciate that Catholics were shat on from a height

But there was an alternative to 28 years of the PIRA, it was disciplined political struggle, international agitation, mass civil disobedience, education and self-empowerment through community organisations

Catholics had righteousness and justice on their side

A 28 year campaign of violence did not make things better for any part of society, it never could, it made people outside the North tune out and want nothing to do with the concept of justice for Catholics, and it did not produce a united Ireland

It produced ethnic cleansing, siloing, entrenchment and incalculable heartache
As someone who didn't support the IRA and who is old enough to have been brought up in the knowledge that I was living in someone else's "country" let me respectively say you  do not know what you are talking about. I went to a respectable grammar school but that didn't stop the Army placing 14 yo me up against the wall and frisking me, feeling my balls. Today that would be called out for what it was abuse. As a life long GAA member in a respectable job it didn't stop the UDR/RIR holding me at checkpoints. I did not condone the IRA's killing of anyone. But context is everything and where some in the South let themselves down is this failure to understand based on ignorance. thankfully my children have a slightly better experience. But their ethnicity is denied in the state which through unionism demands their allegiance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 11:46:02 AM
The Irish Government's prime Constitutional imperative and what they are elected for is to run the State.
The Good Friday Agreement sets out the criteria for holding a "Border poll" which unfortunately is in the gift of the Brit Secretary of state.
That however is what a large majority of the Irish people voted for in 1998.

People in the south are constantly being told we don't know what it's like living up in the North. You now want people in the south to call for a border poll on how the people in the north should live. It's up to the UK government/NI assembly to call for a vote on remaining as part of the UK. With SF/DUP as divided as they've ever been I don't see a border poll being called anytime soon and there's certainly no pressure being put on the Irish government by anyone in the south to look for one

There is a general consensus across the board in the north and in London that a border poll will happen in the relatively near future. Would you say that FFG Governments are being responsible by refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a poll, let alone plan for a potential positive outcome?

I see SF calling for a poll, but beyond that there's no appetite or demand for one. The Irish government don't see this as a priority as the electorate in the south don't see it as a priority. Only when people start putting pressure on the Irish government will that position change. I don't blame the government for this. Why put your energy into something that will get them little political gain and knowing the campaign itself will be a very bitter one in the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 12:33:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:15:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 17, 2021, 05:03:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 17, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
Christ Almighty. The vast majority of nationalist envy the South for having freedom and independence. there are however a few tools spoiling for a fight. it is true that some in the Republic view the North as a foreign country, possibly a sizeable few but I'd say that given the right circumstances and that is a two way street, unity would be no issue. Bating our Southern brothers and constance reference to the Freestate does not help.

And what does the esablishment figureheads of the 26 consistently playing political games with victims of the troubles achieve?

Northern nationalists have been treated with contempt from the southern counterparts for decades, we shouldn't be afraid to call it out for what it is.
By some but not all, and don't judge all politicians by Micheál Martin or Leo.

Where have the dissenting voices in FFG been on their leader's words?

That's the issue, it's party policy for FFG to politicise The Troubles and cynically dismiss the plight northern nationalists faced. So I think we can judge all FFG politicians on the way they have failed to fight this narrative and policy within their own parties.

FFG leaders will stand up in the Dail and demand SF go into government with the DUP but both parties will refuse to talk to SF when it comes to forming a government.
Martin is playing too a different gallery, SF do so too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 12:37:10 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 12:31:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 08:01:00 AM
Just for clarification, Sid and I posted on a different forum for years back.

We agreed on a lot of things back then so I do know his views now are completely at odds. I know what he is saying now is both vindictive and emotional at his personal opinion with the current actions of SF. He's entitled to criticise the party but when he engages in revisionism of The Troubles is another things.

Here are some of his former viewpoints. The Troubles ended in 1998 yet Sidney was a supporter of the Provisional IRA campaign until about 3 or 4 years ago.

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/3/4/34651b37901d18f34d161ccb1a5a54ced498bf7e.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/4/3/43de3301ec4b1f7f2f3f3278644164d647980207.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/b/db9aa37719d2a172bf892a4cc6a2ed4ddf0e1851.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/3/6/36464e09f800b8159c6460b44d4fca57e0585685.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/a/e/ae035908f5295f2c867112fec5aed52d12039614.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/e/3/e3bd32173f416215484a42aba09e9b77641d0de2.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/c/d/cd9d513e7ac64b8d5ade61c9960760ab55a6da31.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/1/0/10964dbf30b83b6328d0ea99a59ebc16f0b415f7.png)

So when people engage in his crazy revisionism of The Troubles and the context around they should be fully knowledgeable that they come from an emotional and embittered place, that he in fact doesn't even believe those views himself. It's political point scoring over a conflict he had no personal experience of.
Contested??

They are his posts.

He was a big supporter of SF and the armed campaign up until his Eoghan Harris moment a couple of years or so back.

The moralising and pontificating you see here are completely hollow.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 12:37:46 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:34:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:39:17 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on March 18, 2021, 01:27:59 AM
Sid. We were shit on. From a great hight. The first time I got spat on I was 8 years old. I was called a fenian **** every single day walking home from primary school and had to run home to avoid a kicking getting off the bus from high school more times than I care to remember. Coming home from football training on a Friday night was a minefield when our friendly neighbours were parading. I don't care about Germany or Poland. I care that a union flag was placed on my grandmothers house because my uncle happened to share the name of a sf Councillor. I care that my brother was beat to a pulp by loyalists one night walking home half cut. I care that my friends cousin and brothers mate was beaten to death at 16 years old and his body hidden in a f**king sheough. Google James Morgan county down. So yes I f**king supported the PIRA.
I appreciate that Catholics were shat on from a height

But there was an alternative to 28 years of the PIRA, it was disciplined political struggle, international agitation, mass civil disobedience, education and self-empowerment through community organisations

Catholics had righteousness and justice on their side

A 28 year campaign of violence did not make things better for any part of society, it never could, it made people outside the North tune out and want nothing to do with the concept of justice for Catholics, and it did not produce a united Ireland

It produced ethnic cleansing, siloing, entrenchment and incalculable heartache
As someone who didn't support the IRA and who is old enough to have been brought up in the knowledge that I was living in someone else's "country" let me respectively say you  do not know what you are talking about. I went to a respectable grammar school but that didn't stop the Army placing 14 yo me up against the wall and frisking me, feeling my balls. Today that would be called out for what it was abuse. As a life long GAA member in a respectable job it didn't stop the UDR/RIR holding me at checkpoints. I did not condone the IRA's killing of anyone. But context is everything and where some in the South let themselves down is this failure to understand based on ignorance. thankfully my children have a slightly better experience. But their ethnicity is denied in the state which through unionism demands their allegiance.
But you haven't displayed any evidence that "I do not know what I'm talking about"

You have merely opined through your own biased lens

Which is a worthless contribution



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 12:38:25 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2021, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 18, 2021, 12:20:18 PM
For a UI to be successful the middle ground is where the battle is won and lost and IMO whilst identity may be important to a lot in this group, economics, health and education will probably play a bigger part. In fact a lot of people who vote for what are deemed nationalist parties could be in this very same cohort.
.

And while people slag off the FFG parties, they have delivered a prosperous economy which provides many of these things that this group wants, something SF would never have done. The retort to this is that this only benefits the few, but this is not true, although some bad decisions have caused problems in housing etc.

They also delivered an economic crash that created mass unemployment, forced mass immigration and the legacy of which is a worsening housing crisis.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on March 18, 2021, 12:38:36 PM
I think if Leo does end up having to go and Convey is Taoiseach for the second half of this governments term the border poll will move up the agenda. I'm far from a fan of FG but to be fair Convey has really fought hard for the North over Brexit and is the first southern politician in a long time remembered the Island didn't stop at Drogheda. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 12:40:38 PM
Has Matt Carty or SF (or any pro AI parties) spelled out what their vision of "New Ireland" will look like or how it will operate?
In practical terms not sound bites or grandiose general terms.
What arrangements will operate for the 6 NE Counties?
What arrangements for those who choose British Nationality (which may not exist by then)?
Will the AI Government be a mandatory Coalition or will a certain number of Cabinet posts be reserved for the 6 NE Counties or for "Ulster British" parties?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:41:36 PM
SF demands for a poll must be seen in the context of a campaign for unity. In reality the margin will cost for little. When unity happens the consensus for it will be overwhelming. But if 51% is good enough to maintain the union it is good enough to start us on the road to unity. That said I have said before SF have a lot of convincing to do on the nationalist and no aligned sides of the argument before they can realistically deliver a yes vote. SF alone will never deliver unity, nor can they be ignored.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:43:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 12:40:38 PM
Has Matt Carty or SF (or any pro AI parties) spelled out what their vision of "New Ireland" will look like or how it will operate?
In practical terms not sound bites or grandiose general terms.
What arrangements will operate for the 6 NE Counties?
What arrangements for those who choose British Nationality (which may not exist by then)?
Will the AI Government be a mandatory Coalition or will a certain number of Cabinet posts be reserved for the 6 NE Counties or for "Ulster British" parties?
The way things are currently any changes to Stormont would need agreement. Sovereignty would change from Britain to Ireland but NI could remain as is but with some representation in the Dail.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:45:11 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 11:46:02 AM
The Irish Government's prime Constitutional imperative and what they are elected for is to run the State.
The Good Friday Agreement sets out the criteria for holding a "Border poll" which unfortunately is in the gift of the Brit Secretary of state.
That however is what a large majority of the Irish people voted for in 1998.

People in the south are constantly being told we don't know what it's like living up in the North. You now want people in the south to call for a border poll on how the people in the north should live. It's up to the UK government/NI assembly to call for a vote on remaining as part of the UK. With SF/DUP as divided as they've ever been I don't see a border poll being called anytime soon and there's certainly no pressure being put on the Irish government by anyone in the south to look for one

There is a general consensus across the board in the north and in London that a border poll will happen in the relatively near future. Would you say that FFG Governments are being responsible by refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a poll, let alone plan for a potential positive outcome?

I see SF calling for a poll, but beyond that there's no appetite or demand for one. The Irish government don't see this as a priority as the electorate in the south don't see it as a priority. Only when people start putting pressure on the Irish government will that position change. I don't blame the government for this. Why put your energy into something that will get them little political gain and knowing the campaign itself will be a very bitter one in the north.

SF's chief demand off FFG is for the planning to start for a poll. I find it staggering that you can't see how stupid it is for any Irish Government to not prepare for possible, or should I say, probable constitutional upheaval. Even Peter Robinson, probably the most strategically minded unionist leader of the past 30 years, has been arguing the point that a border poll is going to happen and that people need to be prepared. We saw what happened when the groundwork wasn't done before the Brexit referendum. It's lunacy to think that the Irish government refusing to plan for a border poll, given it's likelihood in the relatively near future, is anything other than gross negligence.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Louther on March 18, 2021, 12:45:37 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 12:40:38 PM
Has Matt Carty or SF (or any pro AI parties) spelled out what their vision of "New Ireland" will look like or how it will operate?
In practical terms not sound bites or grandiose general terms.
What arrangements will operate for the 6 NE Counties?
What arrangements for those who choose British Nationality (which may not exist by then)?
Will the AI Government be a mandatory Coalition or will a certain number of Cabinet posts be reserved for the 6 NE Counties or for "Ulster British" parties?

I don't believe so and in fairness maybe they making the noise now to start this process. It will be complex and time consuming.

And from a 26 counties view I would also think they'd prefer to be in opposition when the process starts, so they can wash their hands of it if it goes wrong and shout from the sidelines.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 18, 2021, 12:41:36 PM
SF demands for a poll must be seen in the context of a campaign for unity. In reality the margin will cost for little. When unity happens the consensus for it will be overwhelming. But if 51% is good enough to maintain the union it is good enough to start us on the road to unity. That said I have said before SF have a lot of convincing to do on the nationalist and no aligned sides of the argument before they can realistically deliver a yes vote. SF alone will never deliver unity, nor can they be ignored.

That is undeniably true.

The central is that FF, particularly in Micheal Martin are doing everything they can to thwart the move towards Irish Unity.

FFG have too much of a vested interest in the establishment politics here, a United Ireland threatens their stranglehold on control.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 12:47:25 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:45:11 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 11:46:02 AM
The Irish Government's prime Constitutional imperative and what they are elected for is to run the State.
The Good Friday Agreement sets out the criteria for holding a "Border poll" which unfortunately is in the gift of the Brit Secretary of state.
That however is what a large majority of the Irish people voted for in 1998.

People in the south are constantly being told we don't know what it's like living up in the North. You now want people in the south to call for a border poll on how the people in the north should live. It's up to the UK government/NI assembly to call for a vote on remaining as part of the UK. With SF/DUP as divided as they've ever been I don't see a border poll being called anytime soon and there's certainly no pressure being put on the Irish government by anyone in the south to look for one

There is a general consensus across the board in the north and in London that a border poll will happen in the relatively near future. Would you say that FFG Governments are being responsible by refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a poll, let alone plan for a potential positive outcome?

I see SF calling for a poll, but beyond that there's no appetite or demand for one. The Irish government don't see this as a priority as the electorate in the south don't see it as a priority. Only when people start putting pressure on the Irish government will that position change. I don't blame the government for this. Why put your energy into something that will get them little political gain and knowing the campaign itself will be a very bitter one in the north.

SF's chief demand off FFG is for the planning to start for a poll. I find it staggering that you can't see how stupid it is for any Irish Government to not prepare for possible, or should I say, probable constitutional upheaval. Even Peter Robinson, probably the most strategically minded unionist leader of the past 30 years, has been arguing the point that a border poll is going to happen and that people need to be prepared. We saw what happened when the groundwork wasn't done before the Brexit referendum. It's lunacy to think that the Irish government refusing to plan for a border poll, given it's likelihood in the relatively near future, is anything other than gross negligence.

You're wasting your time debating with Dublin7.

He doesn't like facts or truth. He is typical of that FS mentality which looks to dismiss the plight of the northern natioanlists and reform of politics on this island.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:45:11 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 11:46:02 AM
The Irish Government's prime Constitutional imperative and what they are elected for is to run the State.
The Good Friday Agreement sets out the criteria for holding a "Border poll" which unfortunately is in the gift of the Brit Secretary of state.
That however is what a large majority of the Irish people voted for in 1998.

People in the south are constantly being told we don't know what it's like living up in the North. You now want people in the south to call for a border poll on how the people in the north should live. It's up to the UK government/NI assembly to call for a vote on remaining as part of the UK. With SF/DUP as divided as they've ever been I don't see a border poll being called anytime soon and there's certainly no pressure being put on the Irish government by anyone in the south to look for one

There is a general consensus across the board in the north and in London that a border poll will happen in the relatively near future. Would you say that FFG Governments are being responsible by refusing to even discuss the possibility of such a poll, let alone plan for a potential positive outcome?

I see SF calling for a poll, but beyond that there's no appetite or demand for one. The Irish government don't see this as a priority as the electorate in the south don't see it as a priority. Only when people start putting pressure on the Irish government will that position change. I don't blame the government for this. Why put your energy into something that will get them little political gain and knowing the campaign itself will be a very bitter one in the north.

SF's chief demand off FFG is for the planning to start for a poll. I find it staggering that you can't see how stupid it is for any Irish Government to not prepare for possible, or should I say, probable constitutional upheaval. Even Peter Robinson, probably the most strategically minded unionist leader of the past 30 years, has been arguing the point that a border poll is going to happen and that people need to be prepared. We saw what happened when the groundwork wasn't done before the Brexit referendum. It's lunacy to think that the Irish government refusing to plan for a border poll, given it's likelihood in the relatively near future, is anything other than gross negligence.

Just because SF want a border poll ASAP it doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon. In case you hadn't noticed the UK/Irish governments have other priorities to be dealing with that are actually happening now.

The issues with Brexit are not due to a lack of groundwork but Boris/Arlene breaking agreements that had been agreed with the EU. The sensible approach would be to wait until such a poll has a high chance of passing before calling it. All calling one now would achieve is a bitter campaign between 2 deeply divided parties in SF & DUP that will only cause further division in the North.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
Just because SF want a border poll ASAP it doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon. In case you hadn't noticed the UK/Irish governments have other priorities to be dealing with that are actually happening now.
Where did I say it would/should happen just because it's what SF want? The reason it will happen, and happen relatively soon, is because all the trends point to it. The Catholic (mostly nationalist) population is younger and growing more rapidly than the Protestant (mostly unionist) population, opinion polls have been showing a steady climb in support for reunification and at the last assembly election, unionism lost it's majority for the first time since partition. So a border poll will happen DESPITE the Irish Government, not because of it. The point is, they need to waken up to that reality and start planning. This in a state that was gerrymandered to ensure they could hold a permanent majority. Brexit has already resulted in what some are calling an "economic united Ireland". Things are already moving inexorably in one direction. To not plan for such constitutional upheaval is gross negligence.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
The issues with Brexit are not due to a lack of groundwork but Boris/Arlene breaking agreements that had been agreed with the EU.
So you think people DID know what they were voting for with Brexit? Are you for real?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
The sensible approach would be to wait until such a poll has a high chance of passing before calling it. All calling one now would achieve is a bitter campaign between 2 deeply divided parties in SF & DUP that will only cause further division in the North.
And as I have now repeatedly said, SF's call is not for a border poll to be held tomorrow, but for the contingency planning to begin today. That IS a sensible approach. The outright refusal of the Irish government to prepare for one is not sensible.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:14:23 PM
The latest opinion poll in NI for a united Ireland shows a 57-43 margin for the status quo

Seems a bit pointless holding a poll in which the outcome seems pretty inevitable and which would seriously ramp up tensions, doesn't it



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 01:16:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 12:37:10 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 12:31:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 08:01:00 AM
Just for clarification, Sid and I posted on a different forum for years back.

We agreed on a lot of things back then so I do know his views now are completely at odds. I know what he is saying now is both vindictive and emotional at his personal opinion with the current actions of SF. He's entitled to criticise the party but when he engages in revisionism of The Troubles is another things.

Here are some of his former viewpoints. The Troubles ended in 1998 yet Sidney was a supporter of the Provisional IRA campaign until about 3 or 4 years ago.

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/3/4/34651b37901d18f34d161ccb1a5a54ced498bf7e.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/4/3/43de3301ec4b1f7f2f3f3278644164d647980207.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/b/db9aa37719d2a172bf892a4cc6a2ed4ddf0e1851.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/3/6/36464e09f800b8159c6460b44d4fca57e0585685.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/a/e/ae035908f5295f2c867112fec5aed52d12039614.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/e/3/e3bd32173f416215484a42aba09e9b77641d0de2.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/c/d/cd9d513e7ac64b8d5ade61c9960760ab55a6da31.png)

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/1/0/10964dbf30b83b6328d0ea99a59ebc16f0b415f7.png)

So when people engage in his crazy revisionism of The Troubles and the context around they should be fully knowledgeable that they come from an emotional and embittered place, that he in fact doesn't even believe those views himself. It's political point scoring over a conflict he had no personal experience of.
Contested??

They are his posts.

He was a big supporter of SF and the armed campaign up until his Eoghan Harris moment a couple of years or so back.

The moralising and pontificating you see here are completely hollow.
Well Sid, is this your #metoo moment?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
The Shinnerbots seem to be having a nervous breakdown  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:22:12 PM
Former shinnerbot Sidney must have had a complete malfunction after his last firmware update.  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 01:25:49 PM
I think we need an official response from sid on these latest allegations   ;D ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
Just because SF want a border poll ASAP it doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon. In case you hadn't noticed the UK/Irish governments have other priorities to be dealing with that are actually happening now.
Where did I say it would/should happen just because it's what SF want? The reason it will happen, and happen relatively soon, is because all the trends point to it. The Catholic (mostly nationalist) population is younger and growing more rapidly than the Protestant (mostly unionist) population, opinion polls have been showing a steady climb in support for reunification and at the last assembly election, unionism lost it's majority for the first time since partition. So a border poll will happen DESPITE the Irish Government, not because of it. The point is, they need to waken up to that reality and start planning. This in a state that was gerrymandered to ensure they could hold a permanent majority. Brexit has already resulted in what some are calling an "economic united Ireland". Things are already moving inexorably in one direction. To not plan for such constitutional upheaval is gross negligence.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
The issues with Brexit are not due to a lack of groundwork but Boris/Arlene breaking agreements that had been agreed with the EU.
So you think people DID know what they were voting for with Brexit? Are you for real?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
The sensible approach would be to wait until such a poll has a high chance of passing before calling it. All calling one now would achieve is a bitter campaign between 2 deeply divided parties in SF & DUP that will only cause further division in the North.
And as I have now repeatedly said, SF's call is not for a border poll to be held tomorrow, but for the contingency planning to begin today. That IS a sensible approach. The outright refusal of the Irish government to prepare for one is not sensible.

If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems. The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called. IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 01:28:17 PM
That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:30:02 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
Just because SF want a border poll ASAP it doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon. In case you hadn't noticed the UK/Irish governments have other priorities to be dealing with that are actually happening now.
Where did I say it would/should happen just because it's what SF want? The reason it will happen, and happen relatively soon, is because all the trends point to it. The Catholic (mostly nationalist) population is younger and growing more rapidly than the Protestant (mostly unionist) population, opinion polls have been showing a steady climb in support for reunification and at the last assembly election, unionism lost it's majority for the first time since partition. So a border poll will happen DESPITE the Irish Government, not because of it. The point is, they need to waken up to that reality and start planning. This in a state that was gerrymandered to ensure they could hold a permanent majority. Brexit has already resulted in what some are calling an "economic united Ireland". Things are already moving inexorably in one direction. To not plan for such constitutional upheaval is gross negligence.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
The issues with Brexit are not due to a lack of groundwork but Boris/Arlene breaking agreements that had been agreed with the EU.
So you think people DID know what they were voting for with Brexit? Are you for real?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
The sensible approach would be to wait until such a poll has a high chance of passing before calling it. All calling one now would achieve is a bitter campaign between 2 deeply divided parties in SF & DUP that will only cause further division in the North.
And as I have now repeatedly said, SF's call is not for a border poll to be held tomorrow, but for the contingency planning to begin today. That IS a sensible approach. The outright refusal of the Irish government to prepare for one is not sensible.

If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems. The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called. IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for

A post completely and utterly factually wrong with most spurious of representations.

Are you in anyway able to expand or substantiate anything you said there?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 01:28:17 PM
That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.
But it's the Shinners here who do that

And it hasn't gone well for yis

Just look at how yis reacted when yis tried to get all moral over Varadkar

Yis lost the plot completely when your hypocrisy was pointed out, and made fools of yerselves

Fraud is the operative word

That is what Sinn Fein is

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 01:28:17 PM
That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.

It's about being able to show tolerance.

Some things you may agree with some you don't.

But as we have seen with Sidney, when he disagrees with someone or something he tries to polarise matters.

His posts are there for all to judge. An Eoghan Harris type transformation, a man who is happy to rewrite history but not willing to examine his own past beliefs or opinions.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.
Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.
Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:48:27 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:57:38 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 05:41:43 AM
No point trying to talk logic and reason to Sid. You can try to explain to him all day about why many ordinary people, living through extraordinary times, felt the IRA campaign was justified. I tried before to have that adult conversation with him and to explain why I felt it was justified. He ignored everything I said and accused me of supporting it because I'm "into dead children" and because I like to see "children blown up". In fact, his "into dead children" bit was his first engagement with me after I offered him my condolences and prayers on the loss of his father.

That's the mentality of who you're trying to engage with. A sick f**k who repeatedly envokes the concept of child suffering and death to attack others on a discussion board. He even recently randomly claimed that another poster accused him of "child rape" ffs. Do not waste your time or energy with that sort of individual.
Personally I think it's long past time for a banning for Snapchap

He makes no effort at all at reasonable discussion and just personally abuses me while inverting reality to claim he is a victim

Like seriously, what sort of person tries to airbrush the suffering of children from history

Inflicting suffering and death on children was an integral part of the PIRA campaign

He uses the words "sick f**k", apparently with zero sense of irony or self awareness

Goebbels couldn't have done any better than that

It's frustrating when a poster behaves in this ultra-narcissistic manner

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/f/8/f8022141b2ade0d245afd6e64356834c7f440f47.png)


Whoooooppssss  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right

Nice to see you aligning yourself with the far right in true Eoghan Harris fashion.  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:59:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right

Nice to see you aligning yourself with the far right in true Eoghan Harris fashion.  ;)
Pointing out that somebody you disagree with on most things may be right on some things isn't "aligning yourself with the far right"

It's displaying an ability to think

Neither is Eilis O'Hanlon far right

You certainly are though



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:59:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right

Nice to see you aligning yourself with the far right in true Eoghan Harris fashion.  ;)
Pointing out that somebody you disagree with on most things may be right on some things isn't "aligning yourself with the far right"

It's displaying an ability to think

Neither is Eilis O'Hanlon far right

You certainly are though

Your credibility is shot. How can any poster attach any sincerity to all your shrieking and virtue signalling when you are villanising people who share the same views you once shouted out proudly?

Smile Sidney, you're on camera.  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.
Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.
Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:18:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:59:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right

Nice to see you aligning yourself with the far right in true Eoghan Harris fashion.  ;)
Pointing out that somebody you disagree with on most things may be right on some things isn't "aligning yourself with the far right"

It's displaying an ability to think

Neither is Eilis O'Hanlon far right

You certainly are though

Your credibility is shot. How can any poster attach any sincerity to all your shrieking and virtue signalling when you are villanising people who share the same views you once shouted out proudly?

Smile Sidney, you're on camera.  ;)
But sure I've never hid that I used to support Sinn Fein, I've openly stated here several times that I voted for them in 2011 and 2016, and have no intention of ever voting for them again

The reason I did that is because unlike you, I have an ability to think and develop my opinions, and to change them where I think it's necessary

Pretty much everybody has previously held opinions that they now disagree with - anybody with a functioning brain, at any rate

You've absolutely no answer when I or anybody else engages you here so you're understandably totally desperate to do anything to deflect from that

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 18, 2021, 02:21:26 PM
Sid,
    There's changing your mind and then there's total amnesia or you've been hit by lightening on the road to damascus dalkey..   ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on March 18, 2021, 02:21:33 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:59:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right

Nice to see you aligning yourself with the far right in true Eoghan Harris fashion.  ;)
Pointing out that somebody you disagree with on most things may be right on some things isn't "aligning yourself with the far right"

It's displaying an ability to think

Neither is Eilis O'Hanlon far right

You certainly are though
What like snap chap agreeing with the PIRA taking up armed resistance against an oppressive regime but being against the killing of innocent children? You are a hypocrite.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:23:06 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:18:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:59:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right

Nice to see you aligning yourself with the far right in true Eoghan Harris fashion.  ;)
Pointing out that somebody you disagree with on most things may be right on some things isn't "aligning yourself with the far right"

It's displaying an ability to think

Neither is Eilis O'Hanlon far right

You certainly are though

Your credibility is shot. How can any poster attach any sincerity to all your shrieking and virtue signalling when you are villanising people who share the same views you once shouted out proudly?

Smile Sidney, you're on camera.  ;)
But sure I've never hid that I used to support Sinn Fein, I've openly stated here several times that I voted for them in 2011 and 2016, and have no intention of ever voting for them again

The reason I did that is because unlike you, I have an ability to think and develop my opinions, and to change them where I think it's necessary

Pretty much everybody has previously held opinions that they now disagree with - anybody with a functioning brain, at any rate

You've absolutely no answer when I or anybody else engages you here so you're understandably totally desperate to do anything to deflect from that

But you have hid that you supported the Provisional IRA.

How can your square off your unequivocal support for their armed campaign with your unequivocal outrage at their armed campaign?

The Troubles ended in 1998, the Provos put down their guns yet you supported that armed campaign for decades after it concluded, celebrated, called the men and women who fought in it heroes.

Now they are the devil.

It's very Eoghan Harris, one of a fair few things you have in tow with the Far Right is a mutual hatred of SF.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:29:29 PM
I previously held opinions about the North I now profoundly disagree with and have never hid that

I disagree with them now because I examined them, realised they were wrong and changed them

So what?

There are a lot of people here who could seriously do with doing the same

You've never changed an opinion in your life - because you've never had any interest in thinking - and it shows

When you do that, you end up having to defend ludicrous things, as you do in every post

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:30:16 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 17, 2021, 09:08:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2021, 08:37:35 PM
Anybody who thinks the War of Independence and the PIRA campaign are morally equivalent is an idiot
Ok Sid, a number of British soldiers are ambushed by the IRA in their fight against British rule. They unmercifully emptied their magazines into these young men, brutally executed by the side of the road in cold blood.

I'm not telling you what county it happened in or what year.

Morally justified or not?
You're resorting to crude reductionism in an attempt to justify a 28 campaign of futile murder

Horrible things happen in all conflicts - but that's not how we judge them in the round

A plausible, arguable moral case can be made for the War of Independence because it was short, sharp, had a clear strategy was and successful - it got most of what the people waging that war wanted

The PIRA never had any hope of getting anything they wanted - and they didn't

They just kept on murdering for 28 years, murdering in a vacuum, like ISIS

And they sacrificed their own for no reason

The deaths of the hunger strikers, for instance, were totally futile

Now, what's the difference between Omagh and Enniskillen or Warrington?

The answer is nothing

To my knowledge, nobody here supports the Real IRA or justifies what they did at Omagh

Yet they justify the PIRA's 28 year campaign of murder

That's remarkable cognitive dissonance

Incidentally, Bernadette Sands McKevitt, the wife of Michael McKevitt, the Omagh bomber, was the sister of Bobby Sands

So if anybody had a handle on the true mindset of Bobby Sands and what he truly believed, it was her

The SF/PIRA movement as a whole moved away from the ideology of Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers when they decided to surrender - I suppose you could say they did the dirt on Sands and people like Brendan Hughes

I'm glad they did that - because peace followed from it - but it's pretty unarguable that the likes of McKevitt and his wife were the true believers and stayed true to the ideology

SF and the vast majority of the PIRA who abided by the ceasefire abandoned their ideology

So what was it all for?

Nothing

Hey guys.

This one is a doozy.

(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/1/0/10975bab19da22c6c18ca34564b395e81a8ea4ea.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:32:54 PM
You seriously need a lie down, Angelo  ;D

Debate really isn't for you

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:36:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:32:54 PM
You seriously need a lie down, Angelo  ;D

Debate really isn't for you

I think you'd appreciate that.  ;D

But I think it's important people know your moralising and pontificating are in no way sincere.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:36:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:32:54 PM
You seriously need a lie down, Angelo  ;D

Debate really isn't for you

I think you'd appreciate that.  ;D

But I think it's important people know your moralising and pontificating are in no way sincere.
On the contrary, having previously held views I now disagree with makes my views now all the more sincere

Because they are the result of deep thought and self examination

This gives them far more weight and credibility

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.
Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.
Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:49:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 02:36:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:32:54 PM
You seriously need a lie down, Angelo  ;D

Debate really isn't for you

I think you'd appreciate that.  ;D

But I think it's important people know your moralising and pontificating are in no way sincere.
On the contrary, having previously held views I now disagree with makes my views now all the more sincere

Because they are the result of deep thought and self examination

This gives them far more weight and credibility

How does it make them sincere? It only portrays as a very emotional, vindictive and petty person

The war ended in 1998.

No new information has came to light about The Troubles in the past few years. Yet up until a few years ago you backed the armed campaign, then you fell out with SF and since then have gone a campaign of exercising your own personal grievances.

There's a real lack of objectivity in your posts, they are very emotional and vindictive. It's fair enough of you to criticise SF and the direction they are going in but it's the revisionism which removes all credibility from you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 02:53:34 PM
If the "war ended in 1998", why are you so paranoid about the Northern bank robbery, the McCartney murder and the Paul Quinn murder being brought up?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 02:54:49 PM
When do the sensible posters think there might be a "Border poll" in the 6 Cos?
Only 1 Person can give the go ahead.
Will a 26 Co vote be held the same day or only subsequent to an A I victory in the 6 Co vote?
What planning do SF want the Irish Government to do exactly?
They have no say in when this vote will be called and have no Jurisdiction in the 6 Cos.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Lar Naparka on March 18, 2021, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 02:54:49 PM
When do the sensible posters think there might be a "Border poll" in the 6 Cos?
Only 1 Person can give the go ahead.
Will a 26 Co vote be held the same day or only subsequent to an A I victory in the 6 Co vote?
What planning do SF want the Irish Government to do exactly?
They have no say in when this vote will be called and have no Jurisdiction in the 6 Cos.
What happens I wonder if the Republic fails to pass the referendum? I'd say a majority in the south would be in favour of a UI but I wouldn't bet the house on it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.
Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.
Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.
OK, but pretty much all evidence shows that a significant democratic majority in NI wants to remain in the UK

So, isn't constant agitation for a border poll which will inevitably lose "pandering to a minority"?



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled?
That's what's written in the GFA. Did you vote for the Agreement yourself? Did you miss that bit? It's a legally binding international agreement. If a simple majority votes for reunification, then there will be reunification. It's called democracy.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal.
Airy fairy, pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Like a Miss Universe being asked what she wants most: "world peace!". On what planet do you live that you think unionists are going to just stop being unionist, or nationalists all suddenly turn unionist? You're never going to get a consensus on the constitutional situation here. All you can do is aim for a reunited Ireland and try to make it as welcoming and inclusive as possible for unionism, because, so as long as a simple majority is enough of a democratic mandate for remaining in the uk, then it is also a sufficient mandate for reunification. And the demographic and political trends all point to that happening. Democracy.


I'm really struggling to understand what you are arguing for. You want there to be a consensus in any future settlement. That implies that if unionism is to be 'converted', they have to be sold a good vision of what reunification would entail. If that's what you are arguing needs to happen, then why on earth would you also argue that the Irish Government shouldn't try to do that very thing because it might upset unionism. FFS make up your mind.

And if you do believe there should be a broad settlement, then that means a border poll would have to be won by a huge majority before it should happen. That being your view, then:
(i) Are you content to scrap the GFA since it legislates for a simple majority being sufficient?
(ii) What % of the population must vote for reunification before you think it should happen? Because I'd love to know just how much more valuable you believe a unionists vote should be over that of a nationalist vote?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.
Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.
Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.

If the vote goes through at such a tight margin it will mean a united Ireland can be brought in, but it won't be the end of the matter. You'll have a deeply divided society and based on previous experience I'd expect it to lead to a re-emergence of the paramilitary conflict that no one wants.

Thankfully this is irrelevant anyway. Despite what some SF supporters think a border poll is not on the agenda at the moment for any government (UK or Irish). I would say we are years away from this being called, but if it is it'll be Boris/UK prime minister who decides and not something the Irish government will decide

 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:23:53 PM
What happens if NI does vote for unification?

Should there then be an agreement that there should be provision for more subsequent border polls where NI could vote to revert to being in the UK?

This would be democracy, yes?

I ask this because if a border poll in NI went the way of the status quo, you can be sure that SF would be agitating for another one before too long

So why should nationalists get another go, a Mulligan, if they lose, but not unionists?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 03:26:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.
Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.
Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.
OK, but pretty much all evidence shows that a significant democratic majority in NI wants to remain in the UK

So, isn't constant agitation for a border poll which will inevitably lose "pandering to a minority"?

I am not agitating for a border poll. But when it does happen, if the majority vote for a U.I then their wishes should be observed with no minority veto. Same if the majority vote to stay within the U.K.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled?
That's what's written in the GFA. Did you vote for the Agreement yourself? Did you miss that bit? It's a legally binding international agreement. If a simple majority votes for reunification, then there will be reunification. It's called democracy.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal.
Airy fairy, pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Like a Miss Universe being asked what she wants most: "world peace!". On what planet do you live that you think unionists are going to just stop being unionist, or nationalists all suddenly turn unionist? You're never going to get a consensus on the constitutional situation here. All you can do is aim for a reunited Ireland and try to make it as welcoming and inclusive as possible for unionism, because, so as long as a simple majority is enough of a democratic mandate for remaining in the uk, then it is also a sufficient mandate for reunification. And the demographic and political trends all point to that happening. Democracy.


I'm really struggling to understand what you are arguing for. You want there to be a consensus in any future settlement. That implies that if unionism is to be 'converted', they have to be sold a good vision of what reunification would entail. If that's what you are arguing needs to happen, then why on earth would you also argue that the Irish Government shouldn't try to do that very thing because it might upset unionism. FFS make up your mind.

Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes). The key should be to try to reach the best scenario to keep the most people what they want to make any transition easier. You might not realise this but there are a significant amount of people who think the exact opposite to you in terms of a united Ireland and while SF/IRA went down the paramilitary road to try force the english  out if your no holds barred, end of story approach is adopted it will only alienate a large section of society and lead to a re-emergence of unionist paramilitaries in defiance of the what they will see at the denial of their heritage/nationalism.

The Irish government can't decide on a referendum as they have no say in it. Why can't you understand this. It's up to the UK to decide.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 03:26:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.
Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.
Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.
OK, but pretty much all evidence shows that a significant democratic majority in NI wants to remain in the UK

So, isn't constant agitation for a border poll which will inevitably lose "pandering to a minority"?

I am not agitating for a border poll. But when it does happen, if the majority vote for a U.I then their wishes should be observed with no minority veto. Same if the majority vote to stay within the U.K.
OK, that's fair enough and is provided for in the GFA

The question then would be - is any hypothetical border poll a one time deal?

Is the result of it set in stone forever, or at least for many decades?

If a vote for unification occurred, what happens then if unionists start  to outbreed nationalists and the balance tips back in favour of NI being part of the UK?

Do the unionists get another go at winning a border poll some time down the road if they lose the first one - or is that right reserved for nationalists - who would, as sure as night follows day, be demanding another border poll not that far down the tracks if they lost the first one
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 03:26:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
If the Irish government were to announce tomorrow they were starting to plan for a united Ireland and demanding a border poll it would only cause more tension/problems.
Cause more problems and tensions? Are you for real? You are really failing to grasp the fact that there is going to be a border poll and it will be relatively soon. Are you suggesting the Irish government would be better just sleepwalking into it and not being prepared for it's outcome, than to actually be prepared?

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
The Irish government are the sensible ones unlike SF demanding the poll be called.
Again, SF are demanding that the planning start. They are not calling for a poll to be held tomorrow. You've had this pointed out to you numerous times, so drop the straw man argument.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 01:27:34 PM
IF SF want a poll to pass they need to bring the DUP/unionists with them and not force them into something they don't want and are not going to vote for
What claptrap. If SF want a polll to pass, they need to bring 50%+1 with them. It's right there in black and white in the GFA. There is absolutely no requirement for a majority of the DUP/unionists to support it. By definition, that can't even happen. When a majority of people vote for reunification, then reunification it is. The days of a unionist veto are over. And if a slim nationalist majority want unity, then you, as a democrat will surely support it? You wouldn't want to "force them into something they don't want" by insisting their wishes be ignored because unionism doesn't like it?

That's the square your position seems unable to circle in your frantic opposition to argue against a border poll. You want unionists to be engaged in a debate about it, yet when it's suggested the Irish government do that very thing, you deem that unacceptable incase it upsets said unionists.

You really think it's that simple? 50.000000001% votes for a united Ireland and everything is settled? I don't see how anything can be settled unless both sides are happy with the deal. Its this nonsense from SF/DUP who both think that the other should do what they want that has the NI assembly in such a mess and anything but a well run functioning government.

If a majority of the population in the north vote for a U.I. 50%+1, then their wishes must be observed. Like the Brexit vote in the U.K. almost 50% voted to remain, but brexit went ahead because the majority voted for it.
That is how democracy works. Pandering to a minority will risk the majority losing faith in democracy and seeking other ways to achieve what they will have voted for.
OK, but pretty much all evidence shows that a significant democratic majority in NI wants to remain in the UK

So, isn't constant agitation for a border poll which will inevitably lose "pandering to a minority"?

I am not agitating for a border poll. But when it does happen, if the majority vote for a U.I then their wishes should be observed with no minority veto. Same if the majority vote to stay within the U.K.
OK, that's fair enough and is provided for in the GFA

The question then would be - is any hypothetical border poll a one time deal?

Is the result of it set in stone forever, or at least for many decades?

If a vote for unification occurred, what happens then if unionists start  to outbreed nationalists and the balance tips back in favour of NI being part of the UK?

Do the unionists get another go at winning a border poll some time down the road if they lose the first one - or is that right reserved for nationalists - who would, as sure as night follows day, be demanding another border poll not that far down the tracks if they lost the first one

The Scottish independence referendum is a good example. As it was such a close vote it achieved nothing and was worst of both worlds. It means leavers are demanding another referendum as it was so close and claiming the closeness of the vote isn't a real mandate to remain part of the UK. The remainers argument the people want to stay is weak one as so many wanted to leave.

If a border poll is called as SF insist and they lose, that would give the UK the right to refuse to call another one for decades as that's what the people have decided. This doesn't seem to be something SF supporters have considered or do they think these polls should be every couple of years until they get the result they want?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 01:28:17 PM
That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.
But it's the Shinners here who do that

And it hasn't gone well for yis

Just look at how yis reacted when yis tried to get all moral over Varadkar

Yis lost the plot completely when your hypocrisy was pointed out, and made fools of yerselves

Fraud is the operative word

That is what Sinn Fein is
Here are my principles and if you don't like them... well I have others.

Angelo really has done a number on you and a service for the rest of us. Exposed as the fraud you are, must sting.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 03:43:28 PM
Of the many Countries (60 or 70?) that got out of the British clutches NONE have asked to go back under their control.
Larnaparka raises an interesting point....what happens if we vite NO?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:47:22 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 01:28:17 PM
That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.
But it's the Shinners here who do that

And it hasn't gone well for yis

Just look at how yis reacted when yis tried to get all moral over Varadkar

Yis lost the plot completely when your hypocrisy was pointed out, and made fools of yerselves

Fraud is the operative word

That is what Sinn Fein is
Here are my principles and if you don't like them... well I have others.

Angelo really has done a number on you and a service for the rest of us. Exposed as the fraud you are, must sting.
Changing your opinions when you realise they're wrong is what a sensible, rational person does

It's a sign of growth as a person and an ability to think

You and Angelo clearly still haven't realised that

It's why you're both so consistently wrong about things on this forum and end up consistently defending ludicrous positions

And why your debating "strategies" are so reminiscent of four year old children





Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 03:51:41 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes).
Of course there will be people who don't accept it, Captain Obvious, but we have a Good Friday Agreement. It's set in stone. If 50%+1 vote for unity in a border poll, like it or lump it, that's what is going to happen. You position seems now to be that the majority of people should be held captive to the will of the minority. Is that your idea of democracy? And the fact that most people in the north have endorse the GFA, means they have already consented to accepting the results of any border poll.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
The key should be to try to reach the best scenario to keep the most people what they want to make any transition easier.
So what you're saying is that a bit of planning needs to be done before a poll should happen? Isn't that precisely what I and SF have been saying the Irish Government ought to be doing, given the absolute inevitability of a poll in the relatively near future? Yet when it's put to you that the Irish government should be doing that planning, you get your knickers in a twist that doing so would only upset unionists. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
You might not realise this but there are a significant amount of people who think the exact opposite to you in terms of a united Ireland
Thank God to have someone from Dublin here to inform me, who has lived in the north his entire life, that there are actually some people in the north don't want reunification  ::)

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
and while SF/IRA went down the paramilitary road to try force the english  out if your no holds barred, end of story approach is adopted it will only alienate a large section of society and lead to a re-emergence of unionist paramilitaries in defiance of the what they will see at the denial of their heritage/nationalism.
I'll brush past your "SF/IRA" line (your mask is slipping there, Jim Allister), I must remind you, yet again, that unionism signed up to the GFA too. That means a majority of the population of the north have agreed on the provision that a simple majority vote is enough. It's not for you to tell the people of the north, who endorsed that Agreement, that they should not be allowed to see it enacted because you think their endorsement of the simple majority provision might waver, post-poll.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
The Irish government can't decide on a referendum as they have no say in it. Why can't you understand this. It's up to the UK to decide.
So if the Irish Government has no say over exactly when a poll will happen (and only knows, like the rest of us, that it will happen relatively soon), then wouldn't that make you think the imperative to be prepared for it only increases?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:57:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 03:43:28 PM
Of the many Countries (60 or 70?) that got out of the British clutches NONE have asked to go back under their control.
Larnaparka raises an interesting point....what happens if we vite NO?
But in all but one case, Ireland, none of these countries were ever part of the United Kingdom itself

In no case did any of these places have a knife edge balance where around half the population was desperate to remain under British control

When NI was created, there was a hefty Protestant/Unionist majority

That changed largely because Catholics/Nationalists started outbreeding Protestants/Unionists

So, in a hypothetical situation where a border poll went the way of unification by 50.1% to 49.9%, what happens then if Protestants/Unionists start outbreeding Catholics/Nationalists and within a short time have tipped the balance back the other way

If Hong Kong held a referendum on whether it wanted to go back under British control now, it would be interesting to see which way it would go
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:59:44 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 03:51:41 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes).
Of course there will be people who don't accept it, Captain Obvious, but we have a Good Friday Agreement. It's set in stone. If 50%+1 vote for unity in a border poll, like it or lump it, that's what is going to happen. You position seems now to be that the majority of people should be held captive to the will of the minority. Is that your idea of democracy?

And what happens if 50% + 1 vote decide to remain in the UK

Is that set in stone?

Forever?

Yes?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
The Scottish independence referendum is a good example. As it was such a close vote it achieved nothing and was worst of both worlds. It means leavers are demanding another referendum as it was so close and claiming the closeness of the vote isn't a real mandate to remain part of the UK. The remainers argument the people want to stay is weak one as so many wanted to leave.

If a border poll is called as SF insist and they lose, that would give the UK the right to refuse to call another one for decades as that's what the people have decided. This doesn't seem to be something SF supporters have considered or do they think these polls should be every couple of years until they get the result they want?

Every couple of years? Have you read any of the GFA at all? If a poll is lost narrowly, then another poll cannot be held for at least 7 years. Now consider that the British Sec of State, according the the GFA, can only call one when it appears "likely to him/her" that a poll will actually result in Irish unity. So then, if it appears likely that a majority will vote for reunification, that then means it will be the likeliest outcome of the poll, so by definition, it will be unlikely that another order poll will even be required.
If the pro-unity vote loses narrowly, then once the required minimum 7 years has passed, and demographics have shifted even further towards an increase in support for reunification, then another border poll will inevitably have to happen again.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 04:03:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:59:44 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 03:51:41 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes).
Of course there will be people who don't accept it, Captain Obvious, but we have a Good Friday Agreement. It's set in stone. If 50%+1 vote for unity in a border poll, like it or lump it, that's what is going to happen. You position seems now to be that the majority of people should be held captive to the will of the minority. Is that your idea of democracy?

And what happens if 50% + 1 vote decide to remain in the UK

Is that set in stone?

Forever?

Yes?

You accused me of being "into dead children". Stop trying to engage with me.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 04:08:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
The Scottish independence referendum is a good example. As it was such a close vote it achieved nothing and was worst of both worlds. It means leavers are demanding another referendum as it was so close and claiming the closeness of the vote isn't a real mandate to remain part of the UK. The remainers argument the people want to stay is weak one as so many wanted to leave.

If a border poll is called as SF insist and they lose, that would give the UK the right to refuse to call another one for decades as that's what the people have decided. This doesn't seem to be something SF supporters have considered or do they think these polls should be every couple of years until they get the result they want?

Every couple of years? Have you read any of the GFA at all? If a poll is lost narrowly, then another poll cannot be held for at least 7 years. Now consider that the British Sec of State, according the the GFA, can only call one when it appears "likely to him/her" that a poll will actually result in Irish unity. So then, if it appears likely that a majority will vote for reunification, that then means it will be the likeliest outcome of the poll, so by definition, it will be unlikely that another order poll will even be required.
If the pro-unity vote loses narrowly, then once the required minimum 7 years has passed, and demographics have shifted even further towards an increase in support for reunification, then another border poll will inevitably have to happen again.
But what if, after a very narrow unification vote, the balance tips back at some point in the future?

Say if a united Ireland proves a disaster, mass unemployment and destruction of the NHS results from it, and people in NI say "f**k this for a game of soldiers, let's rejoin the UK"

Why should Unionists not get another go at winning after losing the first poll, if nationalists are to "get another go" if they lose?

Would you support the provision in any unification agreement that NI should be able to vote to rejoin the UK if it so wished, or vote to secede?

Any rejection of such would be anti-democratic, surely?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 04:03:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:59:44 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 03:51:41 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:32:05 PM
Its simple really. You seem to think if a poll is held and is passed (especially if its a small majority) everyone will think that's grand and just accept it. That's not how the real world works. There will be people who refuse to accept the verdict (whichever way it goes).
Of course there will be people who don't accept it, Captain Obvious, but we have a Good Friday Agreement. It's set in stone. If 50%+1 vote for unity in a border poll, like it or lump it, that's what is going to happen. You position seems now to be that the majority of people should be held captive to the will of the minority. Is that your idea of democracy?

And what happens if 50% + 1 vote decide to remain in the UK

Is that set in stone?

Forever?

Yes?

You accused me of being "into dead children". Stop trying to engage with me.
You've accused me of being sub-human and a "sick f**k"

You should be thankful that I'm so polite as to still be willing to engage with you despite your despicable behaviour

I think it shows great tolerance on my part
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 04:13:20 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
The Scottish independence referendum is a good example. As it was such a close vote it achieved nothing and was worst of both worlds. It means leavers are demanding another referendum as it was so close and claiming the closeness of the vote isn't a real mandate to remain part of the UK. The remainers argument the people want to stay is weak one as so many wanted to leave.

If a border poll is called as SF insist and they lose, that would give the UK the right to refuse to call another one for decades as that's what the people have decided. This doesn't seem to be something SF supporters have considered or do they think these polls should be every couple of years until they get the result they want?

Every couple of years? Have you read any of the GFA at all? If a poll is lost narrowly, then another poll cannot be held for at least 7 years. Now consider that the British Sec of State, according the the GFA, can only call one when it appears "likely to him/her" that a poll will actually result in Irish unity. So then, if it appears likely that a majority will vote for reunification, that then means it will be the likeliest outcome of the poll, so by definition, it will be unlikely that another order poll will even be required.
If the pro-unity vote loses narrowly, then once the required minimum 7 years has passed, and demographics have shifted even further towards an increase in support for reunification, then another border poll will inevitably have to happen again.

7 years is something. It's not definite though. Depending on the closeness of the vote there's no guarantee another vote will be called and the secretary of state can easily refuse to call one. While the decision rests with the Sec. of state he's not going to make that decision without the UK PM (whoever that will be) giving his approval so in reality that's who'll need to be convinced.

Can the remainers call for another vote in 7 years if the vote goes the other way and the Sec of state thinks that's what the majority want?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on March 18, 2021, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:57:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 03:43:28 PM
Of the many Countries (60 or 70?) that got out of the British clutches NONE have asked to go back under their control.
Larnaparka raises an interesting point....what happens if we vite NO?
But in all but one case, Ireland, none of these countries were ever part of the United Kingdom itself

In no case did any of these places have a knife edge balance where around half the population was desperate to remain under British control

When NI was created, there was a hefty Protestant/Unionist majority

That changed largely because Catholics/Nationalists started outbreeding Protestants/Unionists

So, in a hypothetical situation where a border poll went the way of unification by 50.1% to 49.9%, what happens then if Protestants/Unionists start outbreeding Catholics/Nationalists and within a short time have tipped the balance back the other way

If Hong Kong held a referendum on whether it wanted to go back under British control now, it would be interesting to see which way it would go

The people of Hong Kong didn't get a vote to leave British control. This was a deal done between China and Britain after the opium wars. So any referendum voting to rejoin with Britain would not be a change of mind by the majority in Hong Kong.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 18, 2021, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2021, 03:43:28 PM
Of the many Countries (60 or 70?) that got out of the British clutches NONE have asked to go back under their control.
Larnaparka raises an interesting point....what happens if we vite NO?

You all get shot with a ball of your own dung.  ;D

no doubt there were people in West Germany who feared for their economy when unification happened there, but their fears weren't realised.

IMO When Ireland is unified the Brits would have to pay up all outstand pension funds and all their liabilities for whatever time and I think there'd quite a lot of goodwill and investment come from the US to help with the process.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on March 18, 2021, 04:34:46 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 04:13:20 PM
7 years is something. It's not definite though. Depending on the closeness of the vote there's no guarantee another vote will be called and the secretary of state can easily refuse to call one. While the decision rests with the Sec. of state he's not going to make that decision without the UK PM (whoever that will be) giving his approval so in reality that's who'll need to be convinced.
The only reason a vote might not be held would be if the Brits were stupid enough to refuse one, when the dogs on the streets know, and opinion polls consistently show that constitutional change is likely. To refuse to grant on in such a scenario would be to put the GFA in a grave. The consent principle was a negotiated settlement, so I don't think even they would be stupid enough to risk undoing all the positives we've seen since 1998.

Quote from: dublin7 on March 18, 2021, 04:13:20 PM
Can the remainers call for another vote in 7 years if the vote goes the other way and the Sec of state thinks that's what the majority want?
"Remainers" can call for whatever they want but they'd be wasting their breath. The GFA does not permit/legislate for a poll being held to confirm the status quo. It can only be called if it appears likely to result in constitutional change. So, as I say, if a poll is called, that means the likely result will be reunification.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:47:22 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 01:28:17 PM
That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.
But it's the Shinners here who do that

And it hasn't gone well for yis

Just look at how yis reacted when yis tried to get all moral over Varadkar

Yis lost the plot completely when your hypocrisy was pointed out, and made fools of yerselves

Fraud is the operative word

That is what Sinn Fein is
Here are my principles and if you don't like them... well I have others.

Angelo really has done a number on you and a service for the rest of us. Exposed as the fraud you are, must sting.
Changing your opinions when you realise they're wrong is what a sensible, rational person does

It's a sign of growth as a person and an ability to think

You and Angelo clearly still haven't realised that

It's why you're both so consistently wrong about things on this forum and end up consistently defending ludicrous positions

And why your debating "strategies" are so reminiscent of four year old children

It's a sign that BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION AND LOGIC, you are someone who used to be "into dead children".

So given that you've admitted that, and consistently (and disgracefully) refused to retract that statement I ask you

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 05:25:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 03:47:22 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 01:28:17 PM
That's the trouble with trying to maintain a Paul Kimmage type black & white moral outlook on life. If you're a fraud you can't maintain it as Ewan McKenna is finding out.
But it's the Shinners here who do that

And it hasn't gone well for yis

Just look at how yis reacted when yis tried to get all moral over Varadkar

Yis lost the plot completely when your hypocrisy was pointed out, and made fools of yerselves

Fraud is the operative word

That is what Sinn Fein is
Here are my principles and if you don't like them... well I have others.

Angelo really has done a number on you and a service for the rest of us. Exposed as the fraud you are, must sting.
Changing your opinions when you realise they're wrong is what a sensible, rational person does

It's a sign of growth as a person and an ability to think

You and Angelo clearly still haven't realised that

It's why you're both so consistently wrong about things on this forum and end up consistently defending ludicrous positions

And why your debating "strategies" are so reminiscent of four year old children
They would normally be traits of a person who has achieved growth & maturity, but you only really show regressive traits. Your childishness is astounding.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:50:03 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 18, 2021, 05:25:09 PM
They would normally be traits of a person who has achieved growth & maturity, but you only really show regressive traits. Your childishness is astounding.
In the Shinners' world, anybody who disagrees with them is a child

Childish, to say the least







Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 05:56:06 PM
These posts have proved that we have posters who's sole purpose is to be a WUM

Complaining about being banned and wondering why others aren't banned is telling!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:00:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 05:56:06 PM
These posts have proved that we have posters who's sole purpose is to be a WUM

Complaining about being banned and wondering why others aren't banned is telling!
I agree

Shinnerbots have continually tried to drag this topic off the topic with WUMming

It seems the sole function of Franko, Snapchap and Angelo is to try and get other posters banned

Some posters lose the plot altogether when they lose debates

These lads must lead very frustrated lives






Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:03:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Hypocrisy?

Really?  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on March 18, 2021, 06:05:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:00:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 05:56:06 PM
These posts have proved that we have posters who's sole purpose is to be a WUM

Complaining about being banned and wondering why others aren't banned is telling!
I agree

Shinnerbots have continually tried to drag this topic off the topic with WUMming

It seems the sole function of Franko, Snapchap and Angelo is to try and get other posters banned

Some posters lose the plot altogether when they lose debates

These lads must lead very frustrated lives
How do i block/ignore this clown?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on March 18, 2021, 06:08:48 PM
I see Claire Byrne doing her show Monday on what a United Ireland will look like and is looking contributors. She will probably roll out Ben Lowry or wee Jamie. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:14:10 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2021, 06:05:37 PM
How do i block/ignore this clown?
Given that you have to ask how to block somebody, your post is deliciously ironic  ;D

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:03:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Hypocrisy?

Really?  ;D
You might want to look up what hypocrisy means

Changing one's views is not hypocrisy

Consistently applying double standards, such as demanding that a politician from a party you don't like stands aside when under investigation, when you have defended politicians from the party you support not standing aside when under investigation - now that very much is hypocrisy

It's a double standard

That's what Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein supporting posters here engage in non-stop

Hypocrisy and double standards

Hypocrisy and double standards is what destroys credibility and yours was totally destroyed a long time ago - along with the likes of Franko and Snapchap

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on March 18, 2021, 06:24:19 PM
https://twitter.com/giggles_eire/status/1372578141982617605?s=21

First step is sacking everyone one of the scum who make up the new RUC
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:28:25 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2021, 06:24:19 PM
https://twitter.com/giggles_eire/status/1372578141982617605?s=21

First step is sacking everyone one of the scum who make up the new RUC
Was Peadar Heffron scum?

What about Ronan Kerr?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on March 18, 2021, 06:29:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:28:25 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2021, 06:24:19 PM
https://twitter.com/giggles_eire/status/1372578141982617605?s=21

First step is sacking everyone one of the scum who make up the new RUC
Was Peadar Heffron scum?

What about Ronan Kerr?
Couldn't tel ya. But can have no respect for anyone who could join that shower.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2021, 06:29:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:28:25 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 18, 2021, 06:24:19 PM
https://twitter.com/giggles_eire/status/1372578141982617605?s=21

First step is sacking everyone one of the scum who make up the new RUC
Was Peadar Heffron scum?

What about Ronan Kerr?
Couldn't tel ya. But can have no respect for anyone who could join that shower.
But you called the PSNI "the new RUC" and called "every one" of them "scum"

So follow through on your words

Peadar Heffron and Ronan Kerr were just decent Catholic lads from a GAA background who wanted to contribute to building a new police force, which would serve everybody in society

I don't see how that makes them "scum"

They weren't/aren't scum
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:03:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Hypocrisy?

Really?  ;D
You might want to look up what hypocrisy means

Changing one's views is not hypocrisy

Consistently applying double standards, such as demanding that a politician from a party you don't like stands aside when under investigation, when you have defended politicians from the party you support not standing aside when under investigation - now that very much is hypocrisy

It's a double standard

That's what Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein supporting posters here engage in non-stop

Hypocrisy and double standards

Hypocrisy and double standards is what destroys credibility and yours was totally destroyed a long time ago - along with the likes of Franko and Snapchap

Dead on Eoghan Harris.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:03:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Hypocrisy?

Really?  ;D
You might want to look up what hypocrisy means

Changing one's views is not hypocrisy

Consistently applying double standards, such as demanding that a politician from a party you don't like stands aside when under investigation, when you have defended politicians from the party you support not standing aside when under investigation - now that very much is hypocrisy

It's a double standard

That's what Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein supporting posters here engage in non-stop

Hypocrisy and double standards

Hypocrisy and double standards is what destroys credibility and yours was totally destroyed a long time ago - along with the likes of Franko and Snapchap

Dead on Eoghan Harris.
That's not an argument

It's just childish whinging and an attempt at name calling

Have you ever considered whether Eoghan Harris might have been correct about some things?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:03:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Hypocrisy?

Really?  ;D
You might want to look up what hypocrisy means

Changing one's views is not hypocrisy

Consistently applying double standards, such as demanding that a politician from a party you don't like stands aside when under investigation, when you have defended politicians from the party you support not standing aside when under investigation - now that very much is hypocrisy

It's a double standard

That's what Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein supporting posters here engage in non-stop

Hypocrisy and double standards

Hypocrisy and double standards is what destroys credibility and yours was totally destroyed a long time ago - along with the likes of Franko and Snapchap

Dead on Eoghan Harris.
That's not an argument

It's just childish whinging and an attempt at name calling

Have you ever considered whether Eoghan Harris might have been correct about some things?

Eoghan Harris is a figure of ridicule who has zero credibility.

Like you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 18, 2021, 06:48:05 PM
Quote from: pbat on March 18, 2021, 06:08:48 PM
I see Claire Byrne doing her show Monday on what a United Ireland will look like and is looking contributors. She will probably roll out Ben Lowry or wee Jamie.

The thing about Ben Lowry is that his brother lives in Dublin, so he may be glad of the opportunity to visit legally!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:48:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:03:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Hypocrisy?

Really?  ;D
You might want to look up what hypocrisy means

Changing one's views is not hypocrisy

Consistently applying double standards, such as demanding that a politician from a party you don't like stands aside when under investigation, when you have defended politicians from the party you support not standing aside when under investigation - now that very much is hypocrisy

It's a double standard

That's what Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein supporting posters here engage in non-stop

Hypocrisy and double standards

Hypocrisy and double standards is what destroys credibility and yours was totally destroyed a long time ago - along with the likes of Franko and Snapchap

Dead on Eoghan Harris.
That's not an argument

It's just childish whinging and an attempt at name calling

Have you ever considered whether Eoghan Harris might have been correct about some things?

Eoghan Harris is a figure of ridicule who has zero credibility.

Like you.
You didn't answer the question

Have you ever considered that maybe Harris is correct on some things?

Answer the question, now, don't go hiding

I would welcome being a figure of ridicule in the eyes of you and several other posters here

I would be very worried if I wasn't

I and any reasonable people find you an object of total ridicule, like, genuinely laughable, you don't know your arse from your elbow and I would strongly question whether you have any real life experience given your views seem to be cogged verbatim straight from conspiracy websites and An Phoblacht
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:48:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:03:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Hypocrisy?

Really?  ;D
You might want to look up what hypocrisy means

Changing one's views is not hypocrisy

Consistently applying double standards, such as demanding that a politician from a party you don't like stands aside when under investigation, when you have defended politicians from the party you support not standing aside when under investigation - now that very much is hypocrisy

It's a double standard

That's what Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein supporting posters here engage in non-stop

Hypocrisy and double standards

Hypocrisy and double standards is what destroys credibility and yours was totally destroyed a long time ago - along with the likes of Franko and Snapchap

Dead on Eoghan Harris.
That's not an argument

It's just childish whinging and an attempt at name calling

Have you ever considered whether Eoghan Harris might have been correct about some things?

Eoghan Harris is a figure of ridicule who has zero credibility.

Like you.
You didn't answer the question

Have you ever considered that maybe Harris is correct on some things?

Answer the question, now, don't go hiding

I would welcome being a figure of ridicule in the eyes of you and several other posters here

I would be very worried if I wasn't

I and any reasonable people find you an object of total ridicule, like, genuinely laughable, you don't know your arse from your elbow and I would strongly question whether you have any real life experience given your views seem to be cogged verbatim straight from conspiracy websites and An Phoblacht

No I haven't.

I think he is an absolute clown who everyone realises is a joke figure with zero credibility.

I think everyone sees there is no sincerity to your moralising on here. You stand for nothing more than a huge ego.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 07:05:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:48:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 06:03:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Hypocrisy?

Really?  ;D
You might want to look up what hypocrisy means

Changing one's views is not hypocrisy

Consistently applying double standards, such as demanding that a politician from a party you don't like stands aside when under investigation, when you have defended politicians from the party you support not standing aside when under investigation - now that very much is hypocrisy

It's a double standard

That's what Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein supporting posters here engage in non-stop

Hypocrisy and double standards

Hypocrisy and double standards is what destroys credibility and yours was totally destroyed a long time ago - along with the likes of Franko and Snapchap

Dead on Eoghan Harris.
That's not an argument

It's just childish whinging and an attempt at name calling

Have you ever considered whether Eoghan Harris might have been correct about some things?

Eoghan Harris is a figure of ridicule who has zero credibility.

Like you.
You didn't answer the question

Have you ever considered that maybe Harris is correct on some things?

Answer the question, now, don't go hiding

I would welcome being a figure of ridicule in the eyes of you and several other posters here

I would be very worried if I wasn't

I and any reasonable people find you an object of total ridicule, like, genuinely laughable, you don't know your arse from your elbow and I would strongly question whether you have any real life experience given your views seem to be cogged verbatim straight from conspiracy websites and An Phoblacht

No I haven't.

I think he is an absolute clown who everyone realises is a joke figure with zero credibility.

I think everyone sees there is no sincerity to your moralising on here. You stand for nothing more than a huge ego.

And the fact that you haven't shows you refuse point blank to engage your brain for fear that reality might disturb it

You exist in a safe space, totally afraid of being triggered,having your feelings offended

Very, very snowflakey

I laughed heartily at your last sentence, your whole forum persona is that of an American style incel pretending to be Donald Trump

I'd really fear for you if your offline persona bears any similarity at all

I feel sorry for you
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 18, 2021, 07:12:25 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:39:17 AM
I appreciate that Catholics were shat on from a height

But there was an alternative to 28 years of the PIRA, it was disciplined political struggle, international agitation, mass civil disobedience, education and self-empowerment through community organisations

Catholics had righteousness and justice on their side

A 28 year campaign of violence did not make things better for any part of society, it never could, it made people outside the North tune out and want nothing to do with the concept of justice for Catholics, and it did not produce a united Ireland

It produced ethnic cleansing, siloing, entrenchment and incalculable heartache
Do you believe your own waffle? Nationalists did exactly what you are suggesting they should have done, perhaps you do need a history lesson.

We had RUC-backed Loyalist pogroms and British soldiers massacring civilians. 50 odd years later we still haven't seen a single British soldier serve a second in jail for murdering civilians. Only today while we're on the subject, it has emerged that one of the parachute regiment soldiers present at Bloody Sunday considering shooting a civilian dead as "an enjoyable experience" and that it "greatly enhanced" his standing in the British army.

I'd like to see you champion civil disobedience after watching your neighbours, parish priest, local children be unceremoniously mowed down by British army machine guns.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 07:18:18 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 18, 2021, 07:12:25 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:39:17 AM
I appreciate that Catholics were shat on from a height

But there was an alternative to 28 years of the PIRA, it was disciplined political struggle, international agitation, mass civil disobedience, education and self-empowerment through community organisations

Catholics had righteousness and justice on their side

A 28 year campaign of violence did not make things better for any part of society, it never could, it made people outside the North tune out and want nothing to do with the concept of justice for Catholics, and it did not produce a united Ireland

It produced ethnic cleansing, siloing, entrenchment and incalculable heartache
Do you believe your own waffle? Nationalists did exactly what you are suggesting they should have done, perhaps you do need a history lesson.

We had RUC-backed Loyalist pogroms and British soldiers massacring civilians. 50 odd years later we still haven't seen a single British soldier serve a second in jail for murdering civilians. Only today while we're on the subject, it has emerged that one of the parachute regiment soldiers present at Bloody Sunday considering shooting a civilian dead as "an enjoyable experience" and that it "greatly enhanced" his standing in the British army.

I'd like to see you champion civil disobedience after watching your neighbours, parish priest, local children be unceremoniously mowed down by British army machine guns.
All you have is "they did this so we had to do that"

That's tit for tat

The logic of tit for tat dictates it never ends

A couple of nights ago, eight people, mostly Asian women, were massacred by a white man

You are saying the appropriate response to that is for an Asian to carry out a tit for tat massacre on white women

And then for a white to come back with another tit for tat massacre

But it isn't
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on March 18, 2021, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 07:18:18 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 18, 2021, 07:12:25 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:39:17 AM
I appreciate that Catholics were shat on from a height

But there was an alternative to 28 years of the PIRA, it was disciplined political struggle, international agitation, mass civil disobedience, education and self-empowerment through community organisations

Catholics had righteousness and justice on their side

A 28 year campaign of violence did not make things better for any part of society, it never could, it made people outside the North tune out and want nothing to do with the concept of justice for Catholics, and it did not produce a united Ireland

It produced ethnic cleansing, siloing, entrenchment and incalculable heartache
Do you believe your own waffle? Nationalists did exactly what you are suggesting they should have done, perhaps you do need a history lesson.

We had RUC-backed Loyalist pogroms and British soldiers massacring civilians. 50 odd years later we still haven't seen a single British soldier serve a second in jail for murdering civilians. Only today while we're on the subject, it has emerged that one of the parachute regiment soldiers present at Bloody Sunday considering shooting a civilian dead as "an enjoyable experience" and that it "greatly enhanced" his standing in the British army.

I'd like to see you champion civil disobedience after watching your neighbours, parish priest, local children be unceremoniously mowed down by British army machine guns.
All you have is "they did this so we had to do that"

That's tit for tat

The logic of tit for tat dictates it never ends

A couple of nights ago, eight people, mostly Asian women, were massacred by a white man

You are saying the appropriate response to that is for an Asian to carry out a tit for tat massacre on white women

And then for a white to come back with another tit for tat massacre

But it isn't
No, that would be your logic. Applied to your own opinion using an irrelevant comparison.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 09:05:18 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Your 'dead children' line was an absolute disgrace, but I have never called for anyone to banned.  I genuinely don't care enough to be bothered.  But it was YOUR line and one which you have doubled down on many times, so now you'll have to own it.

Referring to it earlier, I was merely pointing it back at you after the embarrassing unmasking which you were subjected to this morning - but it was still YOUR line.

So - a little quiz for you...

One of the following MUST be true, it's a logical certainty - and I'd like you to tell me which one.

1. General support the IRA's armed campaign does not cause a person to be 'into dead children' - and you have been talking bullshit repeatedly when referring to it

2. You, for a period of your life, were 'into dead children'


I appreciate this will be difficult for you to answer, but if it's any consolation, your 'reputation' is already in tatters, so you may as well go for it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 09:23:06 PM
Hilariously, Franko, you're now adopting what are, in your own words "absolutely disgraceful" tactics

You're some laugh

It just proves that when you complained about the dead children jibe (which is true by the way, and applies to you just as much as Snapchap and Angelo) it was all a fraud on your part

Virtue signalling nonsense

You're only embarrassing yourself now

Nothing new there though
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 09:26:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 09:23:06 PM
Hilariously, Franko, you're now adopting what are, in your own words "absolutely disgraceful" tactics

You're some laugh

It just proves that when you complained about the dead children jibe (which is true by the way, and applies to you just as much as Snapchap and Angelo) it was all a fraud on your part

Virtue signalling nonsense

You're only embarrassing yourself now

Nothing new there though

Nope, it's your line... just pointing it back at you.  Uncomfortable as it may be for you, you'll have to own it...

But we're getting distracted here...

1 or 2?

Which is it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 18, 2021, 09:43:04 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 09:23:06 PM
Hilariously, Franko, you're now adopting what are, in your own words "absolutely disgraceful" tactics

You're some laugh

It just proves that when you complained about the dead children jibe (which is true by the way, and applies to you just as much as Snapchap and Angelo) it was all a fraud on your part

Virtue signalling nonsense

You're only embarrassing yourself now

Nothing new there though

I think you've been cornered Sid.

I expect some fairly substantial mental gymnastics to try and not answer this. 😂
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 09:45:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 09:26:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 09:23:06 PM
Hilariously, Franko, you're now adopting what are, in your own words "absolutely disgraceful" tactics

You're some laugh

It just proves that when you complained about the dead children jibe (which is true by the way, and applies to you just as much as Snapchap and Angelo) it was all a fraud on your part

Virtue signalling nonsense

You're only embarrassing yourself now

Nothing new there though

Nope, it's your line... just pointing it back at you.  Uncomfortable as it may be for you, you'll have to own it...

But we're getting distracted here...

1 or 2?

Which is it?
There's nothing remotely uncomfortable here for me

I've never hidden I was a former SF supporter

Quote from: sid waddell on December 12, 2020, 03:25:15 PM

I say this as somebody who voted no. 1 for Sinn Fein in 2011 and 2016

Quote from: sid waddell on August 21, 2020, 03:56:30 PM

"The Fianna Gael bot"

Deary me

Never voted for a Fianna Fail or Fine Gael candidate in me life, never will

I voted number one for Sinn Fein at two successive general elections - 2011 and 2016 (Eoin O'Broin in Dublin Mid-West)

The difference between me and you is I decided to think deeply about what Sinn Fein actually are, and I'm no longer prepared to support the party

To Shinners like you, changing one's view is a sign of weakness

Renouncing support for SF is a betrayal, because to those on board, it's a cult

It's why people who leave Sinn Fein or the Republican movement get so vilified by them, up to and including murdering them

So to you, any new Sinn Fein supporters, and there are many, are weak because they changed their view to support the party

You complained about the line - and yet you're prepared to use it yourself

You were the one that complained about it, yet you are prepared to use it unironically, so you're the hypocrite

Good luck with your deprogramming

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 09:48:21 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 09:45:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 09:26:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 09:23:06 PM
Hilariously, Franko, you're now adopting what are, in your own words "absolutely disgraceful" tactics

You're some laugh

It just proves that when you complained about the dead children jibe (which is true by the way, and applies to you just as much as Snapchap and Angelo) it was all a fraud on your part

Virtue signalling nonsense

You're only embarrassing yourself now

Nothing new there though

Nope, it's your line... just pointing it back at you.  Uncomfortable as it may be for you, you'll have to own it...

But we're getting distracted here...

1 or 2?

Which is it?
There's nothing remotely uncomfortable here for me

I've never hidden I was a former SF supporter

Quote from: sid waddell on December 12, 2020, 03:25:15 PM

I say this as somebody who voted no. 1 for Sinn Fein in 2011 and 2016

Quote from: sid waddell on August 21, 2020, 03:56:30 PM

"The Fianna Gael bot"

Deary me

Never voted for a Fianna Fail or Fine Gael candidate in me life, never will

I voted number one for Sinn Fein at two successive general elections - 2011 and 2016 (Eoin O'Broin in Dublin Mid-West)

The difference between me and you is I decided to think deeply about what Sinn Fein actually are, and I'm no longer prepared to support the party

To Shinners like you, changing one's view is a sign of weakness

Renouncing support for SF is a betrayal, because to those on board, it's a cult

It's why people who leave Sinn Fein or the Republican movement get so vilified by them, up to and including murdering them

So to you, any new Sinn Fein supporters, and there are many, are weak because they changed their view to support the party

You complained about the line - and yet you're prepared to use it yourself

You were the one that complained about it, yet you are prepared to use it unironically, so you're the hypocrite

Good luck with your deprogramming

So is it 1, or is it 2?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:09:57 PM
When I supported SF I deluded myself into believing the same lies and delusions you now believe, that the "movement" wasn't sectarian, that certain atrocities could be put to one side and that an argument could be maintained that the movement was essentially noble in it's overall aim, that it wasn't a murder machine but fighting for freedom

I came to realise those were lies and propaganda, that far from fighting for freedom, they were fighting for nothing except misery and societal destruction, that far from the rebel chic portrayal, the whole thing was utterly rotten

Plenty of other people came to realise that

The Sinn Fein leadership came to realise it themselves, but they cannot admit the truth, because to do would be to destroy the party

You aren't at that stage yet

You're still at the denial stage

As are several other posters

Angelo, for instance, believes the Garda Siochana were to blame for Omagh

Shinnerbots on this thread are utterly seething at how I've exposed the rotten ideology of SF/PIRA on multiple threads lately

So far from debating things they're unable to debate, they decide to fling something I've never hidden back at me - and delude themselves into thinking they've a point

It just showcases the intellectual bankruptcy of Shinnerbots
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 10:10:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:09:57 PM
When I supported SF I deluded myself into believing the same lies and delusions you now believe, that the "movement" wasn't sectarian, that certain atrocities could be put to one side and that an argument could be maintained that the movement was essentially noble in it's overall aim, that it wasn't a murder machine but fighting for freedom

I came to realise those were lies and propaganda, that far from fighting for freedom, they were fighting for nothing except misery and societal destruction, that far from the rebel chic portrayal, the whole thing was utterly rotten

Plenty of other people came to realise that

The Sinn Fein leadership came to realise it themselves, but they cannot admit the truth, because to do would be to destroy the party

You aren't at that stage yet

You're still at the denial stage

As are several other posters

Angelo, for instance, believes the Garda Siochana were to blame for Omagh

Shinnerbots on this thread are utterly seething at how I've exposed the rotten ideology of SF/PIRA on multiple threads lately

So far from debating things they're unable to debate, they decide to fling something I've never hidden back at me - and delude themselves into thinking they've a point

It just showcases the intellectual bankruptcy of Shinnerbots

1 or 2 Sid?  Simple question.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:14:47 PM
But its you, by your own admission, Franko, who is "into dead children"

This is you saying that












Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 10:19:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:14:47 PM
But its you, by your own admission, Franko, who is "into dead children"

This is you saying that

;D ;D I'd say nice try but that was pathetic.

Surely someone so principled and so certain in their views on this PARTICULAR topic could manage an answer?

The question couldn't be simpler.

So...once again I put it to you

Is it 1...

or is it 2?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:21:05 PM
Can we get an answer before I go to bed?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it






Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 10:26:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:09:57 PM

Angelo, for instance, believes the Garda Siochana were to blame for Omagh



A Garda Siochana informant stole the car used in the Omagh bombing. He told his handlers about the car and that it was to be used in an imminent bombing.

It's disingenuous to say I blame the Gardai solely for Omagh but it is a fact they have to bear some responsibility. No Garda involved in failing yo act on the Omagh intel have ever faced any disciplinary action. I think one of them actually went on to climb the ranks.

Omagh is as seedy as it got for me. There was so much intel and information known about this bomb in advance it is absolutely remarkable it went ahead. I appreciate it could be raw for some here so I will leave my comments on it at that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 10:27:18 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

So is it 1 or is it 2?

Easy peasy
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
No

But I was willing to partially overlook it against my better judgment

Because I was willing to believe what I later came to realise was essentially propaganda - that the movement as a whole was essentially fighting for freedom

It wasn't

Others here now openly embrace that propaganda
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
No

But I was willing to partially overlook it against my better judgment

Because I was willing to believe what I later came to realise was essentially propaganda - that the movement as a whole was essentially fighting for freedom

It wasn't

Others here now openly embrace that propaganda

So you only liked some of the murders not all, gotcha
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:36:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
No

But I was willing to partially overlook it against my better judgment

Because I was willing to believe what I later came to realise was essentially propaganda - that the movement as a whole was essentially fighting for freedom

It wasn't

Others here now openly embrace that propaganda

So you only liked some of the murders not all, gotcha
What's your own view on the PIRA?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 10:40:07 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
No

But I was willing to partially overlook it against my better judgment

Because I was willing to believe what I later came to realise was essentially propaganda - that the movement as a whole was essentially fighting for freedom

It wasn't

Others here now openly embrace that propaganda

Nope, no good.

You were very clear in your earlier posts what support for the PIRA meant according to you

So this dross is not gonna cut it here unfortunately

Like I said - it's a logical certainty.  And don't take my word for it - it's of your own construction

So don't desert your beliefs at this point, when the tough questions are being asked

It's a simple question with a simple answer

1 or 2
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:44:54 PM
But Franko, it isn't - and you know this full well, which is why you decide to go in for crude reductionism in an effort to protect yourself

And then you trap yourself

Read back - your own words damn you

Because you specifically say that being a SF/PIRA supporter necessitates being into dead children

And yet you openly are one now

In the full knowledge of that

How do you square that?

They answer is - you can't

It looks really bad for you

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:45:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:36:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
No

But I was willing to partially overlook it against my better judgment

Because I was willing to believe what I later came to realise was essentially propaganda - that the movement as a whole was essentially fighting for freedom

It wasn't

Others here now openly embrace that propaganda

So you only liked some of the murders not all, gotcha
What's your own view on the PIRA?

I've never been involved nor voted extremes. I'm very much a nationalist wanting a UI but would not support a campaign that will cause death, like you did.

I completely understand how it happened and seen first hand during the troubles atrocities and discrimination, I was lucky enough to come through it unscathed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:47:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:45:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:36:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
No

But I was willing to partially overlook it against my better judgment

Because I was willing to believe what I later came to realise was essentially propaganda - that the movement as a whole was essentially fighting for freedom

It wasn't

Others here now openly embrace that propaganda

So you only liked some of the murders not all, gotcha
What's your own view on the PIRA?

I've never been involved nor voted extremes. I'm very much a nationalist wanting a UI but would not support a campaign that will cause death, like you did.

I completely understand how it happened and seen first hand during the troubles atrocities and discrimination, I was lucky enough to come through it unscathed.
Well, many posters on this thread do support it and justify it to this day

Angelo, Franko, Snapchap, Itchy, Armagh18 etc.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:50:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:47:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:45:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:36:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
No

But I was willing to partially overlook it against my better judgment

Because I was willing to believe what I later came to realise was essentially propaganda - that the movement as a whole was essentially fighting for freedom

It wasn't

Others here now openly embrace that propaganda

So you only liked some of the murders not all, gotcha
What's your own view on the PIRA?

I've never been involved nor voted extremes. I'm very much a nationalist wanting a UI but would not support a campaign that will cause death, like you did.

I completely understand how it happened and seen first hand during the troubles atrocities and discrimination, I was lucky enough to come through it unscathed.
Well, many posters on this thread do support it and justify it to this day

Angelo, Franko, Snapchap, Itchy, Armagh18 etc.

But so did you, championing deaths with posts of support. I'll accept you've changed your view but you have accept that at that time you supported these murders.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 18, 2021, 10:53:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:44:54 PM
But Franko, it isn't - and you know this full well, which is why you decide to go in for crude reductionism in an effort to protect yourself

And then you trap yourself

Read back - your own words damn you

Because you specifically say that being a SF/PIRA supporter necessitates being into dead children

And yet you openly are one now

In the full knowledge of that

How do you square that?

They answer is - you can't

It looks really bad for you

Nope, wrong again.  This has been a bad day for you.

My words are only to question you, using a phrase which YOU coined and have repeated many times

So, again - 1 or 2?

Which is it?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 19, 2021, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 09:05:18 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 18, 2021, 05:13:15 PM

When and why did you start being "into dead children"?
You and Snapchap were complaining bitterly about this line

And now you're using it yourself unironically

Shoudn't that be a self-banning offence?

Because previously you said this line was offside, and now you're using it yourslef

Maybe Snapchap should clarify if he sees you as sub human too

The hypocrisy of the Shinners never ceases to amaze

Your 'dead children' line was an absolute disgrace, but I have never called for anyone to banned.  I genuinely don't care enough to be bothered.  But it was YOUR line and one which you have doubled down on many times, so now you'll have to own it.

Referring to it earlier, I was merely pointing it back at you after the embarrassing unmasking which you were subjected to this morning - but it was still YOUR line.

So - a little quiz for you...

One of the following MUST be true, it's a logical certainty - and I'd like you to tell me which one.

1. General support the IRA's armed campaign does not cause a person to be 'into dead children' - and you have been talking bullshit repeatedly when referring to it

2. You, for a period of your life, were 'into dead children'


I appreciate this will be difficult for you to answer, but if it's any consolation, your 'reputation' is already in tatters, so you may as well go for it.

Well sid.

You've been uncharacteristically quiet today.

Did you ever manage to get a look at this one?

If you can't answer, just let me know and I'll stop asking.

Good lad
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on March 19, 2021, 06:48:58 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:47:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:45:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:36:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 10:24:07 PM
Read your own words back, Franko

You are a current SF supporter and in your own words, the words you previously classed as disgraceful but now admit are correct, being a current SF supporter involves being into dead children

You say this with the full knowledge of what it involves

You're actually boasting about it

Ok, but did you at some point in the past support these deaths of children?
No

But I was willing to partially overlook it against my better judgment

Because I was willing to believe what I later came to realise was essentially propaganda - that the movement as a whole was essentially fighting for freedom

It wasn't

Others here now openly embrace that propaganda

So you only liked some of the murders not all, gotcha
What's your own view on the PIRA?

I've never been involved nor voted extremes. I'm very much a nationalist wanting a UI but would not support a campaign that will cause death, like you did.

I completely understand how it happened and seen first hand during the troubles atrocities and discrimination, I was lucky enough to come through it unscathed.
Well, many posters on this thread do support it and justify it to this day

Angelo, Franko, Snapchap, Itchy, Armagh18 etc.
Fair enough Sid you decided you don't support the Provo's anymore- your choice and you obviously have your reasons. But by your own admission you did support them, until for whatever reason you've had a huge change of heart.

Can you answer me 2 things.

One- why the drastic change in opinion?
Two- how can you sit and dish out abuse to people who still support the provo's when you held the same or similar views for years?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JimStynes on March 19, 2021, 07:03:26 PM
Up them
#teamangelo
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 19, 2021, 07:26:10 PM
Maybe Sid is banned again :o
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 19, 2021, 11:12:14 PM
Again, Franko, you are the person that needs to answer questions

You've now admitted - after previously denying it - that to support the PIRA now necessitates being into dead children

And you admit that you are a supporter of them

All the time you spent complaining about the dead children comment was thus a fraud on your part

It was virtue signalling nonsense

When did you realise that you were virtue signalling and decide to full on embrace the role of glorifier of killing children?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2021, 12:42:58 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 19, 2021, 11:12:14 PM
Again, Franko, you are the person that needs to answer questions

You've now admitted - after previously denying it - that to support the PIRA now necessitates being into dead children

And you admit that you are a supporter of them

All the time you spent complaining about the dead children comment was thus a fraud on your part

It was virtue signalling nonsense

When did you realise that you were virtue signalling and decide to full on embrace the role of glorifier of killing children?
He hasn't said that. He's using what you claimed as a reference. And you've been unable to answer. Don't get me wrong it's been highly entertaining to watch you grasp at more and more straws. Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 20, 2021, 12:55:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2021, 12:42:58 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 19, 2021, 11:12:14 PM
Again, Franko, you are the person that needs to answer questions

You've now admitted - after previously denying it - that to support the PIRA now necessitates being into dead children

And you admit that you are a supporter of them

All the time you spent complaining about the dead children comment was thus a fraud on your part

It was virtue signalling nonsense

When did you realise that you were virtue signalling and decide to full on embrace the role of glorifier of killing children?
He hasn't said that. He's using what you claimed as a reference. And you've been unable to answer. Don't get me wrong it's been highly entertaining to watch you grasp at more and more straws. Keep up the good work.
He did indeed say it

After whinging for weeks about it

And outed himself as a total hypocrite in the process

As are all Shinners here, who disassociate themselves from dissos yet associate themselves with people who did the exact same thing as dissos

A circle they've never been able to square

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2021, 01:04:54 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 20, 2021, 12:55:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2021, 12:42:58 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 19, 2021, 11:12:14 PM
Again, Franko, you are the person that needs to answer questions

You've now admitted - after previously denying it - that to support the PIRA now necessitates being into dead children

And you admit that you are a supporter of them

All the time you spent complaining about the dead children comment was thus a fraud on your part

It was virtue signalling nonsense

When did you realise that you were virtue signalling and decide to full on embrace the role of glorifier of killing children?
He hasn't said that. He's using what you claimed as a reference. And you've been unable to answer. Don't get me wrong it's been highly entertaining to watch you grasp at more and more straws. Keep up the good work.
He did indeed say it

After whinging for weeks about it

And outed himself as a total hypocrite in the process

As are all Shinners here, who disassociate themselves from dissos yet associate themselves with people who did the exact same thing as dissos

A circle they've never been able to square
He has you tied in a knot. 😂😂
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 20, 2021, 01:15:30 AM
Keep digging

Shinners are all the same, shameless, and with the mental age of three year old child, with apologies to three year old children

Sinn Fein have never properly apologised for blowing up three year old children

Maybe they might give one to the parents of Jonathan Ball tomorrow given the date



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 20, 2021, 02:29:26 AM
Ah, good to see you back Sid.

So is it 1 or 2?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on March 20, 2021, 08:28:42 AM
Quote from: Franko on March 20, 2021, 02:29:26 AM
Ah, good to see you back Sid.

So is it 1 or 2?
You've about as much chance of getting an answer as there is of Jamie Bryson coming out as a Celtic supporter.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 20, 2021, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 20, 2021, 08:28:42 AM
Quote from: Franko on March 20, 2021, 02:29:26 AM
Ah, good to see you back Sid.

So is it 1 or 2?
You've about as much chance of getting an answer as there is of Jamie Bryson coming out as a Celtic supporter.

Maybe so.

But I'll keep giving him the chance to do the right thing.

I'm hoping he sees it as a positive - a chance to remove some of the many question marks over his character.

We shall see.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 20, 2021, 11:06:35 AM
Keep digging Franko

Enjoy the Warrington anniversary celebrations, actually don't
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 20, 2021, 11:10:17 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 20, 2021, 11:06:35 AM
Keep digging Franko

Enjoy the Warrington anniversary celebrations, actually don't

And still you keep ducking the question.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on March 20, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Keep digging
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on March 20, 2021, 11:19:33 AM
I probably will.

Because the more I dig the more I seem to find on your lack of character.

It does a service for everyone else on the board and puts your continued moralising and spoofing in context.

And not a good context where you are concerned.

Plus, it's enjoyable watching you squirm.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 11:40:29 AM
A United Ireland hinges on when and why "Sid" stopped being a PIRA supporter  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: charlieTully on March 20, 2021, 01:43:29 PM
Has there ever been a poll on the board here about how one would vote in a border poll?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 11:40:29 AM
A United Ireland hinges on when and why "Sid" stopped being a PIRA supporter  ;D

If Sinn Fein really want a poll on a united Ireland why did Michelle O"Neill refuse to meet Boris Johnson recently?

I can understand why Boris refused to meet Mary Lou as she's not in government in the republic, but what was Michelle's excuse?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 02:42:15 PM
Orders?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on March 20, 2021, 02:45:22 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 11:40:29 AM
A United Ireland hinges on when and why "Sid" stopped being a PIRA supporter  ;D

If Sinn Fein really want a poll on a united Ireland why did Michelle O"Neill refuse to meet Boris Johnson recently?

I can understand why Boris refused to meet Mary Lou as she's not in government in the republic, but what was Michelle's excuse?

Because she wanted a meeting of substance, not just a walk on part in a Boris photoshoot.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 20, 2021, 02:45:22 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 11:40:29 AM
A United Ireland hinges on when and why "Sid" stopped being a PIRA supporter  ;D

If Sinn Fein really want a poll on a united Ireland why did Michelle O"Neill refuse to meet Boris Johnson recently?

I can understand why Boris refused to meet Mary Lou as she's not in government in the republic, but what was Michelle's excuse?

Because she wanted a meeting of substance, not just a walk on part in a Boris photoshoot.

Is that the official reason Boris wanted to meet Michelle and Arlene. How exactly do SF expect to convince Boris then to call a border poll? 

By not meeting Boris all SF did was give Arlene/DUP a chance to tell him whatever they want without question and made their chances of a border poll weaker.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ned on March 21, 2021, 10:41:14 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 20, 2021, 02:45:22 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 11:40:29 AM
A United Ireland hinges on when and why "Sid" stopped being a PIRA supporter  ;D

If Sinn Fein really want a poll on a united Ireland why did Michelle O"Neill refuse to meet Boris Johnson recently?

I can understand why Boris refused to meet Mary Lou as she's not in government in the republic, but what was Michelle's excuse?

Because she wanted a meeting of substance, not just a walk on part in a Boris photoshoot.

Is that the official reason Boris wanted to meet Michelle and Arlene. How exactly do SF expect to convince Boris then to call a border poll? 

By not meeting Boris all SF did was give Arlene/DUP a chance to tell him whatever they want without question and made their chances of a border poll weaker.

Not sure that's how it works! That was all about appearances.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on March 21, 2021, 03:34:50 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 20, 2021, 02:45:22 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 11:40:29 AM
A United Ireland hinges on when and why "Sid" stopped being a PIRA supporter  ;D

If Sinn Fein really want a poll on a united Ireland why did Michelle O"Neill refuse to meet Boris Johnson recently?

I can understand why Boris refused to meet Mary Lou as she's not in government in the republic, but what was Michelle's excuse?

Because she wanted a meeting of substance, not just a walk on part in a Boris photoshoot.

Is that the official reason Boris wanted to meet Michelle and Arlene. How exactly do SF expect to convince Boris then to call a border poll? 

By not meeting Boris all SF did was give Arlene/DUP a chance to tell him whatever they want without question and made their chances of a border poll weaker.
This is bullshit. Boris visit was more to do with the impending Scottish election and possible leave referendum. SF meeting Boris would not have achieved anything other than giving him a photo opp. With FF/FG lobbying against a UI referendum don't expect one anytime soon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 21, 2021, 03:42:20 PM
There won't be one till the Brit Secretary of state is if an opinion that a majority might want to vote for a UI.

SF, FG, FF, SDLP, or anyone else have no say in it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: An Watcher on March 21, 2021, 04:04:27 PM
Even if the dogs on the street know they'll vote for a UI, the Brit Secretary of State still won't grant one
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on March 21, 2021, 04:04:44 PM
Colum told us he would get Brexit stopped.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sdlp-calls-for-border-poll-on-united-ireland-after-brexit-negotiations-1.3101566


He also told us he would push for a Border Poll.


Colum is a clown.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/snap-border-poll-bad-for-nationalists-claims-sdlps-eastwood-40195783.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on March 21, 2021, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 21, 2021, 03:34:50 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 20, 2021, 02:45:22 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 11:40:29 AM
A United Ireland hinges on when and why "Sid" stopped being a PIRA supporter  ;D

If Sinn Fein really want a poll on a united Ireland why did Michelle O"Neill refuse to meet Boris Johnson recently?

I can understand why Boris refused to meet Mary Lou as she's not in government in the republic, but what was Michelle's excuse?

Because she wanted a meeting of substance, not just a walk on part in a Boris photoshoot.

Is that the official reason Boris wanted to meet Michelle and Arlene. How exactly do SF expect to convince Boris then to call a border poll? 

By not meeting Boris all SF did was give Arlene/DUP a chance to tell him whatever they want without question and made their chances of a border poll weaker.
This is bullshit. Boris visit was more to do with the impending Scottish election and possible leave referendum. SF meeting Boris would not have achieved anything other than giving him a photo opp. With FF/FG lobbying against a UI referendum don't expect one anytime soon.

First FF/FG weren't doing enough/anything to call for a border poll. Now they're apparently actively lobbying against it. Couldn't make it up
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on April 04, 2021, 11:05:25 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right

Syd you ballix, you got an honourable mention...

https://twitter.com/eilisohanion/status/1378813661813309442?s=21

Bringing our good name down 😕
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Saffrongael on April 04, 2021, 11:14:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 21, 2021, 04:04:44 PM
Colum told us he would get Brexit stopped.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sdlp-calls-for-border-poll-on-united-ireland-after-brexit-negotiations-1.3101566


He also told us he would push for a Border Poll.


Colum is a clown.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/snap-border-poll-bad-for-nationalists-claims-sdlps-eastwood-40195783.html

Almost as good as this prediction

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/well-have-a-united-ireland-by-2016-says-mcguinness-25922555.html



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2021, 11:37:19 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 04, 2021, 11:05:25 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
I wouldn't have much time for Eilis O'Hanlon as a writer

But maybe she was correct in some of what she said

Certainly the Shinnerbots on this forum seem very intent on proving her right

Syd you ballix, you got an honourable mention...

https://twitter.com/eilisohanion/status/1378813661813309442?s=21

Bringing our good name down 😕
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9cVgDiQYM
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: Saffrongael on April 04, 2021, 11:14:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 21, 2021, 04:04:44 PM
Colum told us he would get Brexit stopped.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sdlp-calls-for-border-poll-on-united-ireland-after-brexit-negotiations-1.3101566


He also told us he would push for a Border Poll.


Colum is a clown.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/snap-border-poll-bad-for-nationalists-claims-sdlps-eastwood-40195783.html

Almost as good as this prediction

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/well-have-a-united-ireland-by-2016-says-mcguinness-25922555.html

Colum's was an election promise. You must be a stoop if that triggered you.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on April 18, 2021, 05:40:58 PM
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/which-has-a-higher-standard-of-living-northern-ireland-or-the-republic-1.4540629?mode=amp


The most commonly used metric and the one the OECD uses to gauge living standards is household disposal income controlled for prices. Using this measure, the study finds that based on 2017 data, total disposable income was $4,600 (€3,840) higher in the Republic compared to Northern Ireland, equating to a 12 per cent advantage after accounting for prices.

Even though this metric favours the Republic, there is no agreed measure of living standards in the economic literature. Alongside income, there are multiple factors that drive a society's relative prosperity – economic mobility, educational provision, employment opportunities, health services, poverty rates.

The Bergin-McGuinness study found that poverty rates were considerably higher in Northern Ireland. Based on a poverty line of below 60 per cent of average household income, 15.9 per cent of individuals in the Republic were found to be at risk of relative poverty compared to 23.8 per cent in Northern Ireland.

Life expectancy

Perhaps one of the most striking differences was in the area of life expectancy. From 2005 onwards, life expectancy in the Republic has exceeded that in the North to the extent that a child born in 2018 is expected to live 1.4 years longer than its Northern counterpart. Even a person aged 65 in the Republic can expect to live a half a year longer than 65-year-olds in the North.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 19, 2021, 08:30:59 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 20, 2021, 02:45:22 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 20, 2021, 02:33:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 11:40:29 AM
A United Ireland hinges on when and why "Sid" stopped being a PIRA supporter  ;D

If Sinn Fein really want a poll on a united Ireland why did Michelle O"Neill refuse to meet Boris Johnson recently?

I can understand why Boris refused to meet Mary Lou as she's not in government in the republic, but what was Michelle's excuse?

Because she wanted a meeting of substance, not just a walk on part in a Boris photoshoot.

Is that the official reason Boris wanted to meet Michelle and Arlene. How exactly do SF expect to convince Boris then to call a border poll? 

By not meeting Boris all SF did was give Arlene/DUP a chance to tell him whatever they want without question and made their chances of a border poll weaker.

There was no meeting on offer. It was a photo op for Boris at a vaccination centre. They wouldn't have had any real opportunity to talk.
Michelle was entirely right.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on April 21, 2021, 10:22:08 AM
43/49 "up there"
51/27 "down here"

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/north-would-vote-against-united-ireland-but-republic-overwhelmingly-in-favour-poll-40338256.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on April 21, 2021, 11:08:44 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 21, 2021, 10:22:08 AM
43/49 "up there"
51/27 "down here"

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/north-would-vote-against-united-ireland-but-republic-overwhelmingly-in-favour-poll-40338256.html

North would vote against a UI???

Of those surveyed, 49 per cent said they would vote to stay in the UK while 43pc would support a united Ireland. The remainder were undecided.

I'd say that's not entirely sure from the actual figures quoted.



Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on April 21, 2021, 12:06:48 PM
As Chris Hazard stated earlier 43% is a great base to start from, that's with no planning or laid out proposals as to what unification will look like. He also made the point that 1 year out from the Scottish Independence vote the vote to leave was in the low 20% and by the time of the election had moved to 44.7%.

Also the Southern numbers would be skewed as the rioting was going on when the polling was carried out, would be very shocked if the real number would not be mid 70's.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on April 21, 2021, 12:16:20 PM
Quote from: pbat on April 21, 2021, 12:06:48 PM
As Chris Hazard stated earlier 43% is a great base to start from, that's with no planning or laid out proposals as to what unification will look like. He also made the point that 1 year out from the Scottish Independence vote the vote to leave was in the low 20% and by the time of the election had moved to 44.7%.

Also the Southern numbers would be skewed as the rioting was going on when the polling was carried out, would be very shocked if the real number would not be mid 70's.

Taking out the dont knows
its 47 UI - 53 UK in NI
and 65 UI - 35 in ROI which looks more healthy

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on April 21, 2021, 08:21:48 PM
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1384617955200278529
Under 45s NI 50% for UI.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on April 21, 2021, 10:48:23 PM
I hope our unionist countrymen enjoy the festivities around NI's centenary year, it ain't looking good for a 125th anniversary with the irrefutable direction of travel.  I could be 70 before it happens .... never thought it was going to take so long, but please God I'm around to see it!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on April 22, 2021, 12:43:52 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 21, 2021, 08:21:48 PM
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1384617955200278529
Under 45s NI 50% for UI.
The charm of Orange/Unionist/Prod/Brit supremacy loses slivers of its (heavily subvented ) lustre by the week.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.
The point I am and continue to make is that just because you say in a poll you would vote for a UI is not an indication of what you would actually do. I want to see a UI, I would give that answer in an opinion poll. But I know that if push comes to shove and there are unanswered questions or uncertainty, even though it would go against my inclination I could not in conscience vote for a UI. There is much work that needs done before the majority of nationalists in the North are convinced, before you even start on the South or the light green SDLP or Alliance voter.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.

What suppression is actually taken place?

What have ideas have been formulated but suppressed by others?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.

What suppression is actually taken place?

What have ideas have been formulated but suppressed by others?
Supression is not how I would describe it but there is an undeniable aversion to any talk of a UI from many in the Southern state and government. Their idea of unity is aspirational as opposed to actually doing something that might contribute to it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on April 27, 2021, 04:29:02 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.

What suppression is actually taken place?

What have ideas have been formulated but suppressed by others?

The Protocol is a huge move towards a United Ireland. It essentially keeps North & South in same customs union, while Britain moves another way. That's the beginning of an economic UI no matter what way you look at it. I've said before: some of these Loyalist agitators are not stupid, they see the way the wind is blowing. Other previous moves like all-island electricity grid further set the infrastructure in place. Still a long way to go, but even export/import results are starting to show greater economic integration on the island. Think it's more important for governments to this behind the scenes stuff, just like with Brexit when Irish government did begin to set-up alternative shipping routes to the Continent, rather than scrambling to do that now. They also had all EU partners agree that North gets automatic entry into EU in event of unification. That might sound obvious, but Scotland won't get automatic entry, as other EU countries still fret about secession. That kind of work rarely gets appreciated, but surely shows Irish government is thinking about unification and being prepared for it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 09:04:56 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.

What suppression is actually taken place?

What have ideas have been formulated but suppressed by others?
Supression is not how I would describe it but there is an undeniable aversion to any talk of a UI from many in the Southern state and government. Their idea of unity is aspirational as opposed to actually doing something that might contribute to it.

Well Angelo did use the term suppression which is an absolutely incredible allegation.

An aversion is something different as you know. But why would there not be an aversion. My guess is that most political parties in the south would happily make moves towards a united ireland if they thought it would a problem free or nearly problem free option. Its a million miles away from that. There is nothing actually wrong with that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: weareros on April 27, 2021, 04:29:02 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.

What suppression is actually taken place?

What have ideas have been formulated but suppressed by others?

The Protocol is a huge move towards a United Ireland. It essentially keeps North & South in same customs union, while Britain moves another way. That's the beginning of an economic UI no matter what way you look at it. I've said before: some of these Loyalist agitators are not stupid, they see the way the wind is blowing. Other previous moves like all-island electricity grid further set the infrastructure in place. Still a long way to go, but even export/import results are starting to show greater economic integration on the island. Think it's more important for governments to this behind the scenes stuff, just like with Brexit when Irish government did begin to set-up alternative shipping routes to the Continent, rather than scrambling to do that now. They also had all EU partners agree that North gets automatic entry into EU in event of unification. That might sound obvious, but Scotland won't get automatic entry, as other EU countries still fret about secession. That kind of work rarely gets appreciated, but surely shows Irish government is thinking about unification and being prepared for it.

I would summarise the activity of the Irish government as;
a) Delivering on its GFA requirements and trying its best to ensure other do likewise
b) Trying to protect the 26 county economy. Which has a direct and largely positive impact on the NI economy
c) Trying to be good EU members

I see no evidence of planning for a UI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on April 27, 2021, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
I would summarise the activity of the Irish government as;
a) Delivering on its GFA requirements and trying its best to ensure other do likewise
b) Trying to protect the 26 county economy. Which has a direct and largely positive impact on the NI economy
c) Trying to be good EU members

I see no evidence of planning for a UI

However b) is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for an UI. It is the one that takes longest to achieve. A plan for a UI can be brought about in 5 years, getting the economy sorted took decades. When a UI comes about it will not be because of Gerry Adams but because of T.K. Whittaker, it will not be the IRA that brought it about but the IDA.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on April 27, 2021, 09:24:29 PM
Quote from: weareros on April 27, 2021, 04:29:02 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.

What suppression is actually taken place?

What have ideas have been formulated but suppressed by others?

The Protocol is a huge move towards a United Ireland. It essentially keeps North & South in same customs union, while Britain moves another way. That's the beginning of an economic UI no matter what way you look at it. I've said before: some of these Loyalist agitators are not stupid, they see the way the wind is blowing. Other previous moves like all-island electricity grid further set the infrastructure in place. Still a long way to go, but even export/import results are starting to show greater economic integration on the island. Think it's more important for governments to this behind the scenes stuff, just like with Brexit when Irish government did begin to set-up alternative shipping routes to the Continent, rather than scrambling to do that now. They also had all EU partners agree that North gets automatic entry into EU in event of unification. That might sound obvious, but Scotland won't get automatic entry, as other EU countries still fret about secession. That kind of work rarely gets appreciated, but surely shows Irish government is thinking about unification and being prepared for it.

Indeed. Fair play to Coveney et al - they've played the long game very f**kin well.

As opposed to Arlene and co who it seems couldn't think beyond the next soundbite on TV.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on April 28, 2021, 03:45:04 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on April 27, 2021, 09:24:29 PM
Quote from: weareros on April 27, 2021, 04:29:02 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.

What suppression is actually taken place?

What have ideas have been formulated but suppressed by others?

The Protocol is a huge move towards a United Ireland. It essentially keeps North & South in same customs union, while Britain moves another way. That's the beginning of an economic UI no matter what way you look at it. I've said before: some of these Loyalist agitators are not stupid, they see the way the wind is blowing. Other previous moves like all-island electricity grid further set the infrastructure in place. Still a long way to go, but even export/import results are starting to show greater economic integration on the island. Think it's more important for governments to this behind the scenes stuff, just like with Brexit when Irish government did begin to set-up alternative shipping routes to the Continent, rather than scrambling to do that now. They also had all EU partners agree that North gets automatic entry into EU in event of unification. That might sound obvious, but Scotland won't get automatic entry, as other EU countries still fret about secession. That kind of work rarely gets appreciated, but surely shows Irish government is thinking about unification and being prepared for it.

Indeed. Fair play to Coveney et al - they've played the long game very f**kin well.

As opposed to Arlene and co who it seems couldn't think beyond the next soundbite on TV.

Coventry has been very impressive throughout and seems to have a genuine empathy with the North
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 09:03:52 AM
Digest this folks

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/centenaries/centenarypoll/majority-favour-a-united-ireland-but-just-22pc-would-pay-for-it-40375875.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 01, 2021, 09:53:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 09:03:52 AM
Digest this folks

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/centenaries/centenarypoll/majority-favour-a-united-ireland-but-just-22pc-would-pay-for-it-40375875.html
What's there to digest? This is a Indo/Belfast telegraph reader poll, yes?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 11:35:43 AM
Irish Independent/Kantar poll.
Doesn't say anything about readers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: PadraicHenryPearse on May 01, 2021, 12:12:54 PM
I have no real affinity with the north, understanding of what its like in the north or want to pay more taxes for a united ireland but when it comes to voting i will 100% vote fot it.

Generations of Irish men and women have suffered, wanted, campaigned, fought, gave their lifes for a united Ireland for me to have a chance to vote for it and vote no as i might be a bit worse off financially is unconscionable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on May 01, 2021, 12:59:59 PM
UI will be great economically long term, inevitable short term pain, we don't bring as much to the table as the south does. It has to and will happen
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Itchy on May 01, 2021, 01:15:58 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 01, 2021, 12:12:54 PM
I have no real affinity with the north, understanding of what its like in the north or want to pay more taxes for a united ireland but when it comes to voting i will 100% vote fot it.

Generations of Irish men and women have suffered, wanted, campaigned, fought, gave their lifes for a united Ireland for me to have a chance to vote for it and vote no as i might be a bit worse off financially is unconscionable.

Even it made me poor id vote for it. However, I believe it will make iteland much stronger to be united.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 01, 2021, 01:29:19 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 11:35:43 AM
Irish Independent/Kantar poll.
Doesn't say anything about readers.
No, but certainly the headlines they chose have been done so with their readership in mind.

"The findings emerge in a Belfast Telegraph poll, run in conjunction with Kantar"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on May 01, 2021, 01:41:20 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 27, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 27, 2021, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 27, 2021, 12:53:51 PM
It does not matter what these polls say, there will not be a UI unless and until all the economic issues have been identified and addressed. People harp on about the NHS, it is currently no better than the Health Service in the south and might even be worse. But how do you begin to address the disparity in income standards between North and South without losing jobs as the North is a low pay economy. How do you prevent loyalist unrest? How do you address concerns from the South? I haven't seen any attempt as yet to address these and the other issues in any serious way.

I would put the political inclination to opening a dialogue on a UI like this

Strongly for - SF
Open to: SDLP, Alliance, PBP, Greens, Social Democrats,
Strongly against: DUP/UUP/TUV, FF, FG, Labour

The ones who want to suppress any talk or discussion on a UI are those who have controlled each state for the past 100 years.

What suppression is actually taken place?

What have ideas have been formulated but suppressed by others?

Are you genuinely stupid or are you just pretending to be? If you seriously have not seen any attempt by Micheal Martin to pour cold water on any talk or discussions on a UI then you have been living under a rock for the past year.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 01:58:20 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 01, 2021, 01:29:19 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 11:35:43 AM
Irish Independent/Kantar poll.
Doesn't say anything about readers.
No, but certainly the headlines they chose have been done so with their readership in mind.

"The findings emerge in a Belfast Telegraph poll, run in conjunction with Kantar"
Why not discuss the results?
Or are you and rest of the SFers waiting for word from HQ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 01, 2021, 02:27:03 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 01:58:20 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 01, 2021, 01:29:19 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 11:35:43 AM
Irish Independent/Kantar poll.
Doesn't say anything about readers.
No, but certainly the headlines they chose have been done so with their readership in mind.

"The findings emerge in a Belfast Telegraph poll, run in conjunction with Kantar"
Why not discuss the results?
Or are you and rest of the SFers waiting for word from HQ?
Oh f**k up. Is that all you have?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 03:20:22 PM
Touched a raw nerve did we? ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on May 02, 2021, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 03:20:22 PM
Touched a raw nerve did we? ;D
Certainly not. I merely pointed out that the poll was carried out by probably the most non-impartial media group in Ireland and you came back with that.

It just sort of defeats the purpose of a (once sensible) discussion board if morons are going to constantly refer to everyone from the north who wants their country unified as a shinnerbot. (You'd maybe be more at home on boards.ie)

I've voted SF before and more than likely will do so again, I make no secret of that. It's not out of some sort of blind loyalty to Connolly House and I'm more than happy to criticise them when it's warranted. My vote is never guaranteed and I've voted for other parties before in the past.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 02, 2021, 10:15:45 AM
I find it very disappointing that there was so little response to this opinion poll which was carried out by a polling company who no doubt used the usual scientific/statistical methods.
A couple of people saying they were in favour of a UI no matter what and General Lee thinking it was just a survey of Independent readers and then rubbishing it because that Paper commissioned the poll.
This on a Board where Northerners are the majority and the majority of them would be SF voters.
A goodly number of them likely members of that party.
The findings of 35/44/21 seem reasonably accurate for the North. The 44 tallying with the Unionist vote in recent elections and the pro Brexit vote.
In a real Referendum how many of the 21 can "we" get to vote for UI?
Again the amount of people who wouldn't be prepared to pay  more tax for a UI wouldn't be too far out.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on May 02, 2021, 01:46:10 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 02, 2021, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2021, 03:20:22 PM
Touched a raw nerve did we? ;D
Certainly not. I merely pointed out that the poll was carried out by probably the most non-impartial media group in Ireland and you came back with that.

It just sort of defeats the purpose of a (once sensible) discussion board if morons are going to constantly refer to everyone from the north who wants their country unified as a shinnerbot. (You'd maybe be more at home on boards.ie)

I've voted SF before and more than likely will do so again, I make no secret of that. It's not out of some sort of blind loyalty to Connolly House and I'm more than happy to criticise them when it's warranted. My vote is never guaranteed and I've voted for other parties before in the past.
The question was asked about are you willing to pay higher taxes to fund a UI, as if most people willingly pay taxes as a given concept. And what exactly are the extra costs and benifits?


IT  business journalist Eoin Kennedy  sets out the case in an interesting article that the subvention issue is largely a red herring in the scheme of a UI, according to DCU study https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/northern-ireland-s-9-4bn-subvention-and-the-cost-of-irish-unity-1.4553553  (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/northern-ireland-s-9-4bn-subvention-and-the-cost-of-irish-unity-1.4553553)

The subvention would diminish to 2.5m p/a  but subject to variables.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on May 02, 2021, 02:57:26 PM
Main thing I would take from Indo poll.
Those who want a border poll North & South are largest segments
It continues a trend of decline in pro-Union vote (at 44%) even if UI is still 9 points behind.
There is now an expectation of a UI North & South within a reasonable timeframe
It should light a fire up the Gov and Nationalist parties that they need to start singing the same tune on the economics and health, and start giving clarity.
The Indo is a bit of a dick for trying to make the narrative about two thirds majority required. How about asking the question: should a 33% or 25% minority get to decide for everyone else?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on May 03, 2021, 02:07:10 AM
Quote from: weareros on May 02, 2021, 02:57:26 PM
Main thing I would take from Indo poll.
Those who want a border poll North & South are largest segments
It continues a trend of decline in pro-Union vote (at 44%) even if UI is still 9 points behind.
There is now an expectation of a UI North & South within a reasonable timeframe
It should light a fire up the Gov and Nationalist parties that they need to start singing the same tune on the economics and health, and start giving clarity.
The Indo is a bit of a dick for trying to make the narrative about two thirds majority required. How about asking the question: should a 33% or 25% minority get to decide for everyone else?

Fully agree.  Just because it is getting close does not mean the goal posts should move .... any vote on Irish reunification is 50% + 1 ... that's called democracy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on May 03, 2021, 08:48:07 AM
Such chat is ultimately futile. The GFA lays out the requirements for a border poll to pass. It's set in stone. The establishment can jump up and down all they like and arrogantly try to change the goalposts, but they can't succeed.

Dissidents have long argued that SF were conned by the GFA and that a border poll will never be allowed happen/pass. Consider for a second what message out sends out when the establishment is actively trying to change the goalposts to ensure a border poll wont pass. Wreckless stuff which to some people may add weight to what dissidents have been arguing about the GFA and which also serves to stoke up/legitimise any violent loyalist reaction to a border poll passing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 03, 2021, 02:17:39 PM
I see in the 6 Cos  28 % identify as Irish, 33% as British and 33% as "Northern Irish"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on May 03, 2021, 02:23:35 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 03, 2021, 02:17:39 PM
I see in the 6 Cos  28 % identify as Irish, 33% as British and 33% as "Northern Irish"

A good clip around the back of the ear needed there
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: grounded on May 03, 2021, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on May 03, 2021, 02:07:10 AM
Quote from: weareros on May 02, 2021, 02:57:26 PM
Main thing I would take from Indo poll.
Those who want a border poll North & South are largest segments
It continues a trend of decline in pro-Union vote (at 44%) even if UI is still 9 points behind.
There is now an expectation of a UI North & South within a reasonable timeframe
It should light a fire up the Gov and Nationalist parties that they need to start singing the same tune on the economics and health, and start giving clarity.
The Indo is a bit of a dick for trying to make the narrative about two thirds majority required. How about asking the question: should a 33% or 25% minority get to decide for everyone else?

Fully agree.  Just because it is getting close does not mean the goal posts should move .... any vote on Irish reunification is 50% + 1 ... that's called democracy.

Correct. More and more you will see this line  being put forward. I remember Seamus Mallon talking about this and obviously the usual suspects like John Bruton and the Indo group jumping on the band wagon.
      As you said its all in the GFA. 
The election in Scotland on Thursday will potentially have a lot more impact on a future  UI than a small poll commisioned by the Indo.
     
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on May 03, 2021, 07:16:09 PM
Good to see the the SDLP, and Matthew O'Toole in particular,  starting a reasoned conversation about what a United Ireland would look like. SF could learn from them, but they may not want to.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/belfast-agreement-not-a-postdated-cheque-for-irish-unity-1.4553658?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/belfast-agreement-not-a-postdated-cheque-for-irish-unity-1.4553658?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on May 03, 2021, 08:44:51 PM
If I read correctly there was a bit more of their poll which they stuck in today's paper - a majority of fans North and South were in favour of All-Ireland soccer team. In north it was 45% for and only 20% against. I guess a lot unknown. But the against number is quite low. I guess two shite teams on island will do that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 02:58:20 PM
Latest Lucid Polls in NI putting it 47/53 with don't knows excluded. 50% of U45's in favour. I guess on the face of it there is a direction of travel. I'd be with General Lee when it comes to SF. Whatever you think of the Indo though, few Northern Nationalists would want to see a UI that was going to cost them in the long run. The challenge as I keep pointing out is for those who want a poll now or in 5 years to demonstrate the impact financially. I do believe that in the long term it would be beneficial for all, but for those 55+ the long term is not a consideration. I also believe that given the right context and agreement both Britain and the EU would offer short to medium term funding if it would put to bed the Irish Question, that is another challenge for poll supporters.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on May 04, 2021, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 02:58:20 PM
Latest Lucid Polls in NI putting it 47/53 with don't knows excluded. 50% of U45's in favour. I guess on the face of it there is a direction of travel. I'd be with General Lee when it comes to SF. Whatever you think of the Indo though, few Northern Nationalists would want to see a UI that was going to cost them in the long run. The challenge as I keep pointing out is for those who want a poll now or in 5 years to demonstrate the impact financially. I do believe that in the long term it would be beneficial for all, but for those 55+ the long term is not a consideration. I also believe that given the right context and agreement both Britain and the EU would offer short to medium term funding if it would put to bed the Irish Question, that is another challenge for poll supporters.

Have heard the Yanks mentioned in this context too
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on May 04, 2021, 03:39:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 03, 2021, 07:16:09 PM
Good to see the the SDLP, and Matthew O'Toole in particular,  starting a reasoned conversation about what a United Ireland would look like. SF could learn from them, but they may not want to.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/belfast-agreement-not-a-postdated-cheque-for-irish-unity-1.4553658?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/belfast-agreement-not-a-postdated-cheque-for-irish-unity-1.4553658?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true)

FF and FG are the people who need to learn about starting a conversation about a UI.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a silly rant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on May 04, 2021, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 02:58:20 PM
Latest Lucid Polls in NI putting it 47/53 with don't knows excluded. 50% of U45's in favour. I guess on the face of it there is a direction of travel. I'd be with General Lee when it comes to SF. Whatever you think of the Indo though, few Northern Nationalists would want to see a UI that was going to cost them in the long run. The challenge as I keep pointing out is for those who want a poll now or in 5 years to demonstrate the impact financially. I do believe that in the long term it would be beneficial for all, but for those 55+ the long term is not a consideration. I also believe that given the right context and agreement both Britain and the EU would offer short to medium term funding if it would put to bed the Irish Question, that is another challenge for poll supporters.
The old tight bastards who'll be dead within a generation or so and who value the queens pound over the reunification of their country shouldn't be able to ruin it for the rest of us.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 04:11:04 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on May 04, 2021, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 02:58:20 PM
Latest Lucid Polls in NI putting it 47/53 with don't knows excluded. 50% of U45's in favour. I guess on the face of it there is a direction of travel. I'd be with General Lee when it comes to SF. Whatever you think of the Indo though, few Northern Nationalists would want to see a UI that was going to cost them in the long run. The challenge as I keep pointing out is for those who want a poll now or in 5 years to demonstrate the impact financially. I do believe that in the long term it would be beneficial for all, but for those 55+ the long term is not a consideration. I also believe that given the right context and agreement both Britain and the EU would offer short to medium term funding if it would put to bed the Irish Question, that is another challenge for poll supporters.
The old tight bastards who'll be dead within a generation or so and who value the queens pound over the reunification of their country shouldn't be able to ruin it for the rest of us.
That is a disgraceful comment unworthy of anyone who would call themselves a nationalist or republican. Would you rather they lived in cold, poverty and starved to death?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on May 04, 2021, 04:15:13 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 04:11:04 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on May 04, 2021, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 02:58:20 PM
Latest Lucid Polls in NI putting it 47/53 with don't knows excluded. 50% of U45's in favour. I guess on the face of it there is a direction of travel. I'd be with General Lee when it comes to SF. Whatever you think of the Indo though, few Northern Nationalists would want to see a UI that was going to cost them in the long run. The challenge as I keep pointing out is for those who want a poll now or in 5 years to demonstrate the impact financially. I do believe that in the long term it would be beneficial for all, but for those 55+ the long term is not a consideration. I also believe that given the right context and agreement both Britain and the EU would offer short to medium term funding if it would put to bed the Irish Question, that is another challenge for poll supporters.
The old tight bastards who'll be dead within a generation or so and who value the queens pound over the reunification of their country shouldn't be able to ruin it for the rest of us.
That is a disgraceful comment unworthy of anyone who would call themselves a nationalist or republican. Would you rather they lived in cold, poverty and starved to death?
No, but you're not a "nationalist" if you would vote no because you reckon it might cost you a few quid. You are one of those people.
But what IS a disgraceful comment, is comparing living in a UI with being "cold, living in poverty and starving to death".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Angelo on May 04, 2021, 04:24:30 PM
Anyone who votes against a UI is neither a nationalist or a republican.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on May 04, 2021, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 04:11:04 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on May 04, 2021, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 04, 2021, 02:58:20 PM
Latest Lucid Polls in NI putting it 47/53 with don't knows excluded. 50% of U45's in favour. I guess on the face of it there is a direction of travel. I'd be with General Lee when it comes to SF. Whatever you think of the Indo though, few Northern Nationalists would want to see a UI that was going to cost them in the long run. The challenge as I keep pointing out is for those who want a poll now or in 5 years to demonstrate the impact financially. I do believe that in the long term it would be beneficial for all, but for those 55+ the long term is not a consideration. I also believe that given the right context and agreement both Britain and the EU would offer short to medium term funding if it would put to bed the Irish Question, that is another challenge for poll supporters.
The old tight bastards who'll be dead within a generation or so and who value the queens pound over the reunification of their country shouldn't be able to ruin it for the rest of us.
That is a disgraceful comment unworthy of anyone who would call themselves a nationalist or republican. Would you rather they lived in cold, poverty and starved to death?

The thing that strikes me, for all the criticism of SF, there's nothing anyone in SF has ever been accused of that the founding fathers in the Republic weren't also guilty of; and of the possible deterrents to a UI that the Brits haven't inflicted on us in spades for centuries. Anyone from a non-Unionist persuasion living in the north who would consider voting against a UI must be suffering textbook Stockholm syndrome.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 04, 2021, 05:33:49 PM
Nowadays, people will vote with their wallet.

A century ago, a hell of a lot of people were piss poor and living in squalid conditions and voting for Independence would have been a formality, as they'd still be piss poor no matter if they were under a Dublin government or a London government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on May 04, 2021, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 04, 2021, 05:33:49 PM
Nowadays, people will vote with their wallet.

A century ago, a hell of a lot of people were piss poor and living in squalid conditions and voting for Independence would have been a formality, as they'd still be piss poor no matter if they were under a Dublin government or a London government.
You'll not be any poorer in a UI than you are now anyway.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 04, 2021, 06:26:28 PM
Very interesting article in the Irish times re the NI deficit of £9.4bn. About £3bn is iro pensions which London has to pay.
Net result is estimated at 2-3 bn in a UI situation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/northern-ireland-s-9-4bn-subvention-and-the-cost-of-irish-unity-1.4553553

Food banks in NI are one very strong argument against the status quo. NI has more economically vulnerable people than the South and in the UK ultra economically vulnerable people get food banks.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on May 05, 2021, 06:54:11 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/d40a9f1a-fc56-44dd-b4c4-967a6b107ade

By almost every measure, Northern Ireland is starting from a low base. A research paper published by economists at Trinity College Dublin in 2019 charted decades of inadequate spending on education and infrastructure, a failure to attract inward investment, and a largely one-way flow of talent from the region.

The result has been economic underperformance relative to the UK and the Irish Republic for much of Northern Ireland's first century, despite massive subsidies from the British government and a surge in state jobs in areas such as defence and security.
"I think [Northern Ireland] will probably continue to underperform," said John FitzGerald, co-author of the Trinity paper and former chief economist at Ireland's Economic and Social Research Institute, a think-tank.

His and others' research found that education has been the biggest barrier to Northern Ireland's prosperity: the result of policies segregating Catholics and Protestants at school along with lower spending, as funding was consumed by defence and housing.
But a senior executive at a large multinational that has spent billions in Ireland, and who could see advantages in Northern Ireland's post-Brexit status, said the relentless negativity of Stormont messaging surrounding the new trading arrangements was one of the reasons the region was uninvestable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on May 05, 2021, 07:25:56 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 04, 2021, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on May 04, 2021, 05:33:49 PM
Nowadays, people will vote with their wallet.

A century ago, a hell of a lot of people were piss poor and living in squalid conditions and voting for Independence would have been a formality, as they'd still be piss poor no matter if they were under a Dublin government or a London government.
You'll not be any poorer in a UI than you are now anyway.

You can't be sure of that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 06, 2021, 12:26:20 PM
https://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews//news/northernirelandnews/2021/05/06/news/sdlp-launches-new-ireland-commission-panel-looking-at-economy-education-and-health-2312463/content.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on May 07, 2021, 01:30:56 PM
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/rethinking-our-national-emblem-what-could-a-united-ireland-flag-look-like-40395785.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on May 07, 2021, 01:35:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 07, 2021, 01:30:56 PM
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/rethinking-our-national-emblem-what-could-a-united-ireland-flag-look-like-40395785.html

Bloody hell and Eoghan Harris is just out the door!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 15, 2021, 07:41:47 PM
Leo has declared there will be a UI in his lifetime, which is just as well as he is a younger than me!
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/united-ireland-can-happen-in-my-lifetimetanaiste-tells-fine-gael-ard-fheis-40543999.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dublin7 on June 15, 2021, 08:01:47 PM
Do our NI posters think SF/DUP will come to an agreement in the next week or will the Assembly collapse again?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 15, 2021, 08:22:41 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on June 15, 2021, 08:01:47 PM
Do our NI posters think SF/DUP will come to an agreement in the next week or will the Assembly collapse again?

God knows.

They absolutely should appoint and move on.

SF should not block appointments. The precedent would be extremely dangerous and do nobody any good.

If ILA is the point of principle then do the work on an ILA and bring it forward. There is no point of principle grandstanding that SF might want to do that they couldn't do down the line.

DUP should do the proper committee work on whatever draft comes forward.

I'd say DUP would be bucked in any near term election. The longer term outlook would only be moderately better.

Any election will be about the protocol. The biggest issue will be sabre rattling on the protocol and how that shakes down the unionist votes. Not sure there would be much change in the nationalist vote other than if a few can see that Alliance have a chance of winning seats that wouldn't in the past then there might be a few first time Alliance voters from the nationalist ranks
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on June 15, 2021, 10:59:11 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 15, 2021, 08:22:41 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on June 15, 2021, 08:01:47 PM
Do our NI posters think SF/DUP will come to an agreement in the next week or will the Assembly collapse again?

God knows.

They absolutely should appoint and move on.

SF should not block appointments. The precedent would be extremely dangerous and do nobody any good.

If ILA is the point of principle then do the work on an ILA and bring it forward. There is no point of principle grandstanding that SF might want to do that they couldn't do down the line.

DUP should do the proper committee work on whatever draft comes forward.

I'd say DUP would be bucked in any near term election. The longer term outlook would only be moderately better.

Any election will be about the protocol. The biggest issue will be sabre rattling on the protocol and how that shakes down the unionist votes. Not sure there would be much change in the nationalist vote other than if a few can see that Alliance have a chance of winning seats that wouldn't in the past then there might be a few first time Alliance voters from the nationalist ranks
I would 100% vote for AP in Upper Bann if it meant ousting Carla Lockhart
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 16, 2021, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: general_lee on June 15, 2021, 10:59:11 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 15, 2021, 08:22:41 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on June 15, 2021, 08:01:47 PM
Do our NI posters think SF/DUP will come to an agreement in the next week or will the Assembly collapse again?

God knows.

They absolutely should appoint and move on.

SF should not block appointments. The precedent would be extremely dangerous and do nobody any good.

If ILA is the point of principle then do the work on an ILA and bring it forward. There is no point of principle grandstanding that SF might want to do that they couldn't do down the line.

DUP should do the proper committee work on whatever draft comes forward.

I'd say DUP would be bucked in any near term election. The longer term outlook would only be moderately better.

Any election will be about the protocol. The biggest issue will be sabre rattling on the protocol and how that shakes down the unionist votes. Not sure there would be much change in the nationalist vote other than if a few can see that Alliance have a chance of winning seats that wouldn't in the past then there might be a few first time Alliance voters from the nationalist ranks
I would 100% vote for AP in Upper Bann if it meant ousting Carla Lockhart
Definitely think that will feature.

But also don't rule out the fact that in a lot of constituencies AP might be the party of first choice for some individuals but they didn't think AP could get elected. That is beginning to change
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 16, 2021, 12:50:37 PM
And right on cue the day after Leo talks about a new United Ireland  Beattie says now is not the right time to be talking about it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 93-DY-SAM on June 16, 2021, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 16, 2021, 12:50:37 PM
And right on cue the day after Leo talks about a new United Ireland  Beattie says now is not the right time to be talking about it.

There will never be a right time for Unionists to talk about it. Similar to a child sticking their fingers in their ears not wanting to listen to what is going on around them only for everyone else to have moved on. Then they'll cry they were not involved.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smelmoth on June 16, 2021, 03:05:15 PM
Beattie et al will run from the debate for as long as they can. Nothing surprising there.

There will come a time when they will change their mind or there will come a time when they are irrelevant.

The point when they change their mind is when wider elections show a majority of seats won by nationalists. That is when the SoS starts to come under pressure and is the last point that political unionism could come to the table. I don't see political unionism coming to the table until it has to. That is a failing of political unionism.

The point where political unionism becomes irrelevant (on this issue) is when a significant proportion of soft unionists or potential unionists vote for parties that do engage in the discussion - principally Alliance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 16, 2021, 03:18:55 PM
Varadkar didn't really say anything new but we all know how Unionists are frantically searching for an Irish/EU bogeyman so that they can redirect any anger away from their own politicians and the British government. It's an age old tactic of theirs. They will shortly be printing off effigies of Varadkar, Coveney and Van der Leyen as we speak in preparation for their annual hate fest Bonfire day out. And I'm only half joking!

Could we even see a future merger between the Alliance Party and FG? It would seem to me like the most natural fit. Due to the nature of society in the north and it's dysfunctional economy which is entirely dependant on subvention grants, I have no idea where the Alliance Party stand on the left-right divide though.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on June 16, 2021, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 16, 2021, 03:18:55 PM
Varadkar didn't really say anything new but we all know how Unionists are frantically searching for an Irish/EU bogeyman so that they can redirect any anger away from their own politicians and the British government. It's an age old tactic of theirs. They will shortly be printing off effigies of Varadkar, Coveney and Van der Leyen as we speak in preparation for their annual hate fest Bonfire day out. And I'm only half joking!

Could we even see a future merger between the Alliance Party and FG? It would seem to me like the most natural fit. Due to the nature of society in the north and it's dysfunctional economy which is entirely dependant on subvention grants, I have no idea where the Alliance Party stand on the left-right divide though.   
Alliance aren't great but Jaysus they're a step above those FG twats surely?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 16, 2021, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on June 16, 2021, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 16, 2021, 03:18:55 PM
Varadkar didn't really say anything new but we all know how Unionists are frantically searching for an Irish/EU bogeyman so that they can redirect any anger away from their own politicians and the British government. It's an age old tactic of theirs. They will shortly be printing off effigies of Varadkar, Coveney and Van der Leyen as we speak in preparation for their annual hate fest Bonfire day out. And I'm only half joking!

Could we even see a future merger between the Alliance Party and FG? It would seem to me like the most natural fit. Due to the nature of society in the north and it's dysfunctional economy which is entirely dependant on subvention grants, I have no idea where the Alliance Party stand on the left-right divide though.   
Alliance aren't great but Jaysus they're a step above those FG twats surely?

What does 'not great' even mean in a northern political context where most things are seen through an us and them lense and where the economy functions on cuckoo economics in the form of a UK subvention grant. None of the political parties have to set budgets in terms of raising taxes and allocating spending as would occur in any normally functioning society. So we don't know where Alliance stand on the economy. They are attracting younger more progressive voters from both sides of the divide and I think that it is possible that FG would be looking at how they could attract a portion of the 1.8 million people should unity occur. They could be potentially looking towards targeting those middle ground voters. 

Lets be honest, FG of all the political parties in the south, have never shown much interest in the north. They can see the winds of change and are showing more interest in it simply because it is politically expedient to do so, not out of any great long held aspiration for Irish unity. FF, the once labelled Republican Party in the south, now look doomed longer term as they get swallowed up by both FG and SF.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on June 16, 2021, 09:04:28 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 16, 2021, 05:32:28 PM

Lets be honest, FG of all the political parties in the south, have never shown much interest in the north. They can see the winds of change and are showing more interest in it simply because it is politically expedient to do so, not out of any great long held aspiration for Irish unity. FF, the once labelled Republican Party in the south, now look doomed longer term as they get swallowed up by both FG and SF.   

Questionable if that is true for Varadkar and Coveney. They are not John Bruton's FG. The Protocol is close to creating an economic UI and has essentially realigned the North's economy in the direction of Dublin and Brussels. It also saved the North from the worst excesses of Brexit. FG for all their other ills were probably the only party that could have pulled this off due to being politically aligned with all the main players in Europe - as Tusk, Barnier and Ursula all belong to EPP. And all held and continue to hold the line, despite all the abuse from Tory press. Surprised the lack of credit here and sometimes feels like opinion in south is formed by right wing English press as there's a line of thought now that the duo messed up big time with the Protocol. But there's also a strand of Nationalism and Middle Ground in North that appreciated an Irish gov not caving into London.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 16, 2021, 09:29:17 PM
Peter Barry was fairly pro nationalist too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 6th sam on June 16, 2021, 09:50:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 16, 2021, 09:29:17 PM
Peter Barry was fairly pro nationalist too.

Would agree RF.
I'm no fan of FG, but Coveney and Barry would be the stand out FG politicians for having a rapport with the Irish in the the six counties . Both very impressive performers
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on June 17, 2021, 01:42:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 16, 2021, 12:50:37 PM
And right on cue the day after Leo talks about a new United Ireland  Beattie says now is not the right time to be talking about it.

As was Alan Kelly, a man who is regularly at pains to insist his party is the heir to the legacy of James Connolly yet who has been critical of Varadkar uttering his support for an end to partition.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on June 17, 2021, 03:48:11 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 16, 2021, 09:29:17 PM
Peter Barry was fairly pro nationalist too.


He demonstrated his affection for the north by running in 4 different Westminster constituencies in one election.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 30, 2021, 11:53:07 PM
the end is nigh, Susan McKay in the New York Times

Northern Ireland Is Coming to an End

By Susan McKay

Ms. McKay is an Irish journalist who writes extensively about the politics and culture of Northern Ireland.

BELFAST, Northern Ireland — It was meant to be a year of celebration.

But Northern Ireland, created in 1921 when Britain carved six counties out of Ireland's northeast, is not enjoying its centenary. Its most ardent upholders, the unionists who believe that the place they call "our wee country" is and must forever remain an intrinsic part of the United Kingdom, are in utter disarray. Their largest party has ousted two leaders within a matter of weeks, while an angry minority has taken to the streets waving flags and threatening violence. And the British government, in resolving Brexit, placed a new border in the Irish Sea.

It's harsh reward for what Northern Ireland's first prime minister, James Craig, called "the most loyal part of Great Britain." But the Protestant statelet is not what it was. Well on its way to having a Catholic majority, the country's once dominant political force — unionism — now finds itself out of step with the community that traditionally gave it uncritical support. And for all his talk of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has made clear his government would cheerfully ditch this last little fragment of Britain's empire if it continues to complicate Brexit.

The writing is on the wall. While the process by which Ireland could become unified is complicated and fraught, one thing seems certain: There isn't going to be a second centenary for Northern Ireland. It might not even last another decade.

A hundred years ago, the mood among unionists was jubilant. When the king and queen of England came to Belfast to mark the opening of the new Northern Ireland Parliament, the streets were decked out with red, white and blue bunting. "The people could not contain themselves," according to Cecil Craig, the wife of the new prime minister. "All Irishmen," King George V said, should "join in making for the land which they love a new era of peace, contentment and good will."


The Catholic minority, known as nationalists because they aspired to be reunited with the rest of Ireland, had no such expectations. For 50 years, unionism dominated the state, instituting a comprehensive system of discrimination in housing, education, employment and voting. Sectarianism was state policy — Protestants were instructed by their leaders to distrust and exclude Catholics, who were outnumbered two to one — and the police force was armed. Britain turned a blind eye, as did the Republic of Ireland.

But discontent among nationalists inevitably built, finding form in the late 1960s in a civil rights campaign that aimed to secure basic rights for the Catholic minority. Outraged, the unionist state reacted by attempting to beat peaceful protesters off the streets. The British Army, whose intervention quickly showed itself to be on the side of unionism, was confronted by the Irish Republican Army, which responded with its own brutal and sectarian campaign. In 1972 the British government suspended the regime in Belfast and placed Northern Ireland under its direct rule.

For almost three decades, the conflict raged. Around 4,000 people, out of a population of fewer than 2 million, were killed; communities were torn apart. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement brought an end to the violence and inaugurated a power-sharing executive, in which parties representing the two main communities operate in mandatory coalition. It was ratified by 70 percent of people in a referendum. The war was over.

The arrangement stumbled along for close to two decades, never fully working yet crucially keeping the peace. But Britain's vote in 2016 to leave the European Union threatened the state's always fragile constitutional relationships. And when the Conservative government settled Brexit with a protocol that established a border for goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, it effectively acknowledged the province as a place apart.
Nor can unionists count on the votes of Protestants. As a society, Northern Ireland has become more secular, more tolerant of diversity, less insular. People who reject conservative social policies have other voting options, and many young people do not vote at all. Some put their energy into global movements like climate justice and feminism — and plenty neither know nor care about the religious background of their friends. The constitutional issue of whether Northern Ireland is Irish or British does not preoccupy them. They are open to persuasion.

Unable to adapt, unionism is on the wane. According to a recent poll, support for the Democratic Unionist Party has slumped to 16 percent, with Sinn Fein, the party that emerged from the I.R.A. and whose fundamental aim is to achieve a united Ireland, well ahead at 25 percent. The next elections, due in less than a year, could see Sinn Fein take the post of first minister for the first time, in what would be a symbolically momentous development.

What's more, Sinn Fein is surging ahead in polls in the Irish Republic and may enter government after the next elections in 2025. While around 50 percent of Northern Irish voters back remaining in the United Kingdom, support for Irish unity is growing. Though by no means imminent, that goal has never seemed closer.

Against this backdrop, some unionists have sunk into resentment. Men in balaclavas, Union Jacks in their fists, have taken to the streets to express their grievances. But it's clear that most Protestants, like the rest of Northern Ireland's populace, deplore talk of a return to violence. They want normal politics instead.

And if unionism cannot deliver it, a growing number of them are tentatively contemplating what for previous generations was unthinkable: that a unified Ireland might not actually be the end of the world.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Silver hill on July 03, 2021, 09:39:15 AM
That just about sums it all up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on July 03, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
There's a lot of work for Nolan to do, save Ulster from disaster.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 03, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
There's a lot of work for Nolan to do, save Ulster from disaster.

well he's certainly not going to save Ulster from Sodomy...

Was talking to a few lads the other night and the health thing seems to be important in their thinking as the NHS is still held up as a bastion of greatness, but after digging in a bit and reminding one lad who's mother died of cancer who's diagnosis and subsequent delayed treatment was botched to put it mildly and the waiting lists in NI are at record levels etc etc the ignorance of the Southern healthcare system is staggering and that needs challenged.

The southern system may have its flaws but the level of nonsense spouted by northerners needs challenged and corrected.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JohnDenver on July 05, 2021, 11:02:08 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 03, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
There's a lot of work for Nolan to do, save Ulster from disaster.

well he's certainly not going to save Ulster from Sodomy...

Was talking to a few lads the other night and the health thing seems to be important in their thinking as the NHS is still held up as a bastion of greatness, but after digging in a bit and reminding one lad who's mother died of cancer who's diagnosis and subsequent delayed treatment was botched to put it mildly and the waiting lists in NI are at record levels etc etc the ignorance of the Southern healthcare system is staggering and that needs challenged.

The southern system may have its flaws but the level of nonsense spouted by northerners needs challenged and corrected.

Is it not a general consensus that the Tories will and are most likely already planning to flog off the NHS to the highest bidder when the opportunity arises?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on July 05, 2021, 11:06:11 AM
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0705/1233040-north-south-research-programme/

Helping the poor relations :P
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: JohnDenver on July 05, 2021, 11:02:08 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 03, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
There's a lot of work for Nolan to do, save Ulster from disaster.

well he's certainly not going to save Ulster from Sodomy...

Was talking to a few lads the other night and the health thing seems to be important in their thinking as the NHS is still held up as a bastion of greatness, but after digging in a bit and reminding one lad who's mother died of cancer who's diagnosis and subsequent delayed treatment was botched to put it mildly and the waiting lists in NI are at record levels etc etc the ignorance of the Southern healthcare system is staggering and that needs challenged.

The southern system may have its flaws but the level of nonsense spouted by northerners needs challenged and corrected.

Is it not a general consensus that the Tories will and are most likely already planning to flog off the NHS to the highest bidder when the opportunity arises?

certainly in England it looks that way, but it's devolved in NI, Scotland and Wales and still officially nationalised but the budgets have been cut to bits and people are taking on medical insurance anyway in NI...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Saffrongael on July 05, 2021, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: JohnDenver on July 05, 2021, 11:02:08 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 03, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
There's a lot of work for Nolan to do, save Ulster from disaster.

well he's certainly not going to save Ulster from Sodomy...

Was talking to a few lads the other night and the health thing seems to be important in their thinking as the NHS is still held up as a bastion of greatness, but after digging in a bit and reminding one lad who's mother died of cancer who's diagnosis and subsequent delayed treatment was botched to put it mildly and the waiting lists in NI are at record levels etc etc the ignorance of the Southern healthcare system is staggering and that needs challenged.

The southern system may have its flaws but the level of nonsense spouted by northerners needs challenged and corrected.

Is it not a general consensus that the Tories will and are most likely already planning to flog off the NHS to the highest bidder when the opportunity arises?

Privatisation in the NHS started with the Labour government

The NHS here could and should be so much better, and it's nothing to do with the bogey men Tories. I read that patient outcomes & waiting lists much worse here compared to England. How many "reviews" have been done and then not implemented ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: grounded on July 05, 2021, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 05, 2021, 11:06:11 AM
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0705/1233040-north-south-research-programme/

Helping the poor relations :P

Hopefully will help everyone's relations.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 02:23:46 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on July 05, 2021, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: JohnDenver on July 05, 2021, 11:02:08 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 03, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
There's a lot of work for Nolan to do, save Ulster from disaster.

well he's certainly not going to save Ulster from Sodomy...

Was talking to a few lads the other night and the health thing seems to be important in their thinking as the NHS is still held up as a bastion of greatness, but after digging in a bit and reminding one lad who's mother died of cancer who's diagnosis and subsequent delayed treatment was botched to put it mildly and the waiting lists in NI are at record levels etc etc the ignorance of the Southern healthcare system is staggering and that needs challenged.

The southern system may have its flaws but the level of nonsense spouted by northerners needs challenged and corrected.

Is it not a general consensus that the Tories will and are most likely already planning to flog off the NHS to the highest bidder when the opportunity arises?

Privatisation in the NHS started with the Labour government

The NHS here could and should be so much better, and it's nothing to do with the bogey men Tories. I read that patient outcomes & waiting lists much worse here compared to England. How many "reviews" have been done and then not implemented ?

It went as far back as Thatcher if the truth was told. She saw the NHS as a burden on the taxpayers and started bringing in the consultants to "streamline" the NHS and the hoards of middle management were brought in and services like cleaning and contract nursing was the norm..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on July 05, 2021, 02:28:48 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/6be4834c-fdd1-4127-8e90-8b10fd25af97


   

   Ban Ki-moon ("The US should back a new approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", Opinion, June 30) is correct, but is a new approach the answer? The situation has some similarity with that in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and in both cases the only long-term solution is that of a single state incorporating both parties. Despite hardliners in both camps, this is inevitable and will develop over time.

Jeffrey Pike
Malaga, Spain
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on July 10, 2021, 09:57:40 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gaels-first-north-branch-will-reach-out-to-moderates-40610394.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on July 12, 2021, 01:26:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 10, 2021, 09:57:40 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gaels-first-north-branch-will-reach-out-to-moderates-40610394.html

A northern branch. Or an "overseas branch" as Leo calls it, which will not be allowed to stand candidates in elections. What a bit of tokenistic PR nonsense.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 27, 2021, 07:21:55 PM
Interesting thread over on Slugger about the 6 county votes broken by county. This data also has relevance for the GAA pick in each county, on this basis Armagh has a smaller pick than Tyrone, Derry, Antrim or Down.  The numbers are votes, not population.


CountyUnionist Bloc %Nationalist Bloc %Middle-Ground Bloc %
Antrim49.90%33.90%16.10%
(est. votes: 213,233)-106,497-72,375-34,361
{±0.52%}{±0.35%}{±0.17%}
Armagh39.90%53.90%6.20%
-72,566-28,963-39,134-4,469
{±1.11%}{±1.50%}{±0.17%}
Down49.10%24.50%26.40%
-190,256-93,458-46,665-50,133
{±0.82%}{±0.41%}{±0.44%}
Fermanagh39.60%53.40%7.00%
-29,390-11,636-15,702-2,052
{±1.19%}{±1.60%}{±0.21%}
Derry33.10%61.60%5.30%
-90,287-29,899-55,568-4,820
{±0.55%}{±1.03%}{±0.09%}
Tyrone34.80%59.40%5.70%
-82,253-28,637-48,895-4,721
{±0.94%}{±1.60%}{±0.15%}
OVERALL:44.10%41.10%14.80%
-677,986-299,091-278,339-100,556
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 27, 2021, 08:22:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 27, 2021, 07:21:55 PM
Interesting thread over on Slugger about the 6 county votes broken by county. This data also has relevance for the GAA pick in each county, on this basis Armagh has a smaller pick than Tyrone, Derry, Antrim or Down.  The numbers are votes, not population.


CountyUnionist Bloc %Nationalist Bloc %Middle-Ground Bloc %
Antrim49.90%33.90%16.10%
(est. votes: 213,233)-106,497-72,375-34,361
{±0.52%}{±0.35%}{±0.17%}
Armagh39.90%53.90%6.20%
-72,566-28,963-39,134-4,469
{±1.11%}{±1.50%}{±0.17%}
Down49.10%24.50%26.40%
-190,256-93,458-46,665-50,133
{±0.82%}{±0.41%}{±0.44%}
Fermanagh39.60%53.40%7.00%
-29,390-11,636-15,702-2,052
{±1.19%}{±1.60%}{±0.21%}
Derry33.10%61.60%5.30%
-90,287-29,899-55,568-4,820
{±0.55%}{±1.03%}{±0.09%}
Tyrone34.80%59.40%5.70%
-82,253-28,637-48,895-4,721
{±0.94%}{±1.60%}{±0.15%}
OVERALL:44.10%41.10%14.80%
-677,986-299,091-278,339-100,556

Considering 50 percent at least of that Derry vote is the city id say Derry has lower pick ..which is why the culchies need to get behind a Derry gaelfast
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 27, 2021, 08:46:20 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 27, 2021, 08:22:52 PM
Considering 50 percent at least of that Derry vote is the city id say Derry has lower pick ..which is why the culchies need to get behind a Derry gaelfast

I am not sure that Gaelfast has yet had dramatic results. But the GAA should certainly look at what has been done in Dublin and extend this to both Belfast and Derry.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 20, 2021, 05:53:03 PM
Not the best thread for this but couldn't find anything better.
Someone needs to explain the concept of a Republic and republicanism to that lad , and Christianity too!

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/ex-ira-gunrunner-gerry-mcgeough-attacked-while-saying-rosary-at-pride-parade-40869298.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Bord na Mona man on September 20, 2021, 10:42:00 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 03, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
There's a lot of work for Nolan to do, save Ulster from disaster.

well he's certainly not going to save Ulster from Sodomy...

Was talking to a few lads the other night and the health thing seems to be important in their thinking as the NHS is still held up as a bastion of greatness, but after digging in a bit and reminding one lad who's mother died of cancer who's diagnosis and subsequent delayed treatment was botched to put it mildly and the waiting lists in NI are at record levels etc etc the ignorance of the Southern healthcare system is staggering and that needs challenged.

The southern system may have its flaws but the level of nonsense spouted by northerners needs challenged and corrected.

Seems to be a trend. The NHS is definitely not what it used to be. Interestingly, many people who cite it is an important advantage of life in the North would qualify for a medical card down South, so the difference wouldn't be as pronounced.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Saffrongael on September 20, 2021, 10:53:13 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 20, 2021, 10:42:00 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 05, 2021, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 03, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
There's a lot of work for Nolan to do, save Ulster from disaster.

well he's certainly not going to save Ulster from Sodomy...

Was talking to a few lads the other night and the health thing seems to be important in their thinking as the NHS is still held up as a bastion of greatness, but after digging in a bit and reminding one lad who's mother died of cancer who's diagnosis and subsequent delayed treatment was botched to put it mildly and the waiting lists in NI are at record levels etc etc the ignorance of the Southern healthcare system is staggering and that needs challenged.

The southern system may have its flaws but the level of nonsense spouted by northerners needs challenged and corrected.

Seems to be a trend. The NHS is definitely not what it used to be. Interestingly, many people who cite it is an important advantage of life in the North would qualify for a medical card down South, so the difference wouldn't be as pronounced.

It's a lot worse here than across the water, waiting lists much worse in 6 counties. Badly managed & our feckless politicians haven't helped
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 20, 2021, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on September 20, 2021, 10:53:13 PM
It's a lot worse here than across the water, waiting lists much worse in 6 counties. Badly managed & our feckless politicians haven't helped

Back 15 years ago or so, the devolved administration made a reasonable effort on the health side of things, things have slipped badly.
In the South things are not good, but there is a fair amount of publicity about A&E and so on, and things have improved a bit. In the North the media doesn't seem to have mapped the decline. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on October 05, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.
Selling out their identity and the reunification of their country over the price of a doctors appointment (which we may not even have to pay anyway), embarrassing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on October 05, 2021, 08:06:17 AM
Waiting List Figures as at 31/12/20.

I know it's 10 months out of date,but the figures won't have improved,if anything they will have gotten a lot worse


NI NHS 
Waiting for OP appointment  300,000 
Waiting for operation/procedure 100,000



HSE
Waiting for OP appointment 613,000

Waiting for procedure 63,000




So with 36% of the population of the Republic



Pro Rata and using the "shitshow" of the HSE as the benchmark for the waiting list metrics


The NI NHS should have 220,000 on waiting lists appointments ,instead it has 80,00 more at 300,000



And it should have 36,000 waiting on procedures instead it has nearly double that at 63,000


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on October 05, 2021, 09:04:21 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 05, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.
Selling out their identity and the reunification of their country over the price of a doctors appointment (which we may not even have to pay anyway), embarrassing.

Or they might have to pay if Brexit takes a turn for the worse if the status quo prevails.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:10:25 AM
Heard someone in work a few weeks ago say that we were so lucky to have free healthcare unlike "down south". I went on a ten minute rant about how that wasn't the case.  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on October 05, 2021, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 05, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.
Selling out their identity and the reunification of their country over the price of a doctors appointment (which we may not even have to pay anyway), embarrassing.

It's 14/15 year olds we're talking about here, who let's face it, don't know much about the real world. Just like everyone else when we were that age.

But it is a good point re: medical fees.

But instead of focusing on perceived disadvantages of a UI,  maybe we could throw open the floor to the perceived advantages, to everyday life for us in the north?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on October 05, 2021, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 05, 2021, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 05, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.
Selling out their identity and the reunification of their country over the price of a doctors appointment (which we may not even have to pay anyway), embarrassing.

It's 14/15 year olds we're talking about here, who let's face it, don't know much about the real world. Just like everyone else when we were that age.

But it is a good point re: medical fees.

But instead of focusing on perceived disadvantages of a UI,  maybe we could throw open the floor to the perceived advantages, to everyday life for us in the north?

I've already said that this narrative about the NHS needs challenged and the €50 to see the GP is one peddled out time and time again.

The NHS in the North is a shambles irrespective of Covid.


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on October 05, 2021, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

It depends how the question is framed. For instance ask the same class how many of them wanted to remain within the UK and see if all hands go up except 4. Using schoolchildren with little real life/world experience in a simple hand showing exercise where they are likely to be at least somewhat apathetic is not exactly a reliable sample size. That is why the border poll question will be interesting to see the wording, I suspect that this will be another argument when it occurs - the exact framing of the question. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 05, 2021, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

It depends how the question is framed. For instance ask the same class how many of them wanted to remain within the UK and see if all hands go up except 4. Using schoolchildren with little real life/world experience in a simple hand showing exercise where they are likely to be at least somewhat apathetic is not exactly a reliable sample size. That is why the border poll question will be interesting to see the wording, I suspect that this will be another argument when it occurs - the exact framing of the question.

Absolutely. Nationalism needs to ensure it is the "Yes" option on the ballot as these tend to be more successful than a negative "No" option.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dire Ear on October 05, 2021, 02:26:23 PM
The teacher has certain influence also ..............
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tyrdub on October 05, 2021, 03:10:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 05, 2021, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 05, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.
Selling out their identity and the reunification of their country over the price of a doctors appointment (which we may not even have to pay anyway), embarrassing.

It's 14/15 year olds we're talking about here, who let's face it, don't know much about the real world. Just like everyone else when we were that age.

But it is a good point re: medical fees.

But instead of focusing on perceived disadvantages of a UI,  maybe we could throw open the floor to the perceived advantages, to everyday life for us in the north?

Do they pay National Insurance down South? I am out a hell of a lot of money for the "free NHS" service, even at 50quid a doctors visit I would be better off that way
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: snoopdog on October 05, 2021, 03:39:28 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 05, 2021, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

It depends how the question is framed. For instance ask the same class how many of them wanted to remain within the UK and see if all hands go up except 4. Using schoolchildren with little real life/world experience in a simple hand showing exercise where they are likely to be at least somewhat apathetic is not exactly a reliable sample size. That is why the border poll question will be interesting to see the wording, I suspect that this will be another argument when it occurs - the exact framing of the question.

Absolutely. Nationalism needs to ensure it is the "Yes" option on the ballot as these tend to be more successful than a negative "No" option.
Wait till they hear about Vehicle registration tax.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 05, 2021, 03:54:56 PM
Their savings on domestic rates vs LPT should cover that!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 05, 2021, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: Tyrdub on October 05, 2021, 03:10:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 05, 2021, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 05, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.
Selling out their identity and the reunification of their country over the price of a doctors appointment (which we may not even have to pay anyway), embarrassing.

It's 14/15 year olds we're talking about here, who let's face it, don't know much about the real world. Just like everyone else when we were that age.

But it is a good point re: medical fees.

But instead of focusing on perceived disadvantages of a UI,  maybe we could throw open the floor to the perceived advantages, to everyday life for us in the north?

Do they pay National Insurance down South? I am out a hell of a lot of money for the "free NHS" service, even at 50quid a doctors visit I would be better off that way

For a person on average wages, the national insurance in the occupied territories is alomost £1000 more than anyone in the 26 counties pays. A unified government could collect this and offer "free" health to everyone without any problem.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 05, 2021, 06:49:37 PM
The border destroyed Derry. It does no favours for Newry.
Cavan and Monaghan also suffer


The only good the border did for Cavan was the 5 All Irelands.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mikhail Prokhorov on October 05, 2021, 08:14:03 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 05, 2021, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: Tyrdub on October 05, 2021, 03:10:01 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 05, 2021, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 05, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.
Selling out their identity and the reunification of their country over the price of a doctors appointment (which we may not even have to pay anyway), embarrassing.

It's 14/15 year olds we're talking about here, who let's face it, don't know much about the real world. Just like everyone else when we were that age.

But it is a good point re: medical fees.

But instead of focusing on perceived disadvantages of a UI,  maybe we could throw open the floor to the perceived advantages, to everyday life for us in the north?

Do they pay National Insurance down South? I am out a hell of a lot of money for the "free NHS" service, even at 50quid a doctors visit I would be better off that way

For a person on average wages, the national insurance in the occupied territories is alomost £1000 more than anyone in the 26 counties pays. A unified government could collect this and offer "free" health to everyone without any problem.

why would this be a surprise to anyone?

the kids are echoing their parents views

the vast majority in the north, including most catholics, support the status quo

unionists are so dumb though that they won't go for a border poll, it would be won by them in a landslide
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: uimhr ocht on October 05, 2021, 09:32:59 PM
Next years census results will be interesting regarding the status quo,it depends what county your 16 year old teenage lives in also,most teenagers play Gaa  and are intelligent enough to know to be part of EU IRE would be better than conservative run britain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 06, 2021, 12:15:16 AM
Quote from: uimhr ocht on October 05, 2021, 09:32:59 PM
Next years census results will be interesting regarding the status quo,it depends what county your 16 year old teenage lives in also,most teenagers play Gaa  and are intelligent enough to know to be part of EU IRE would be better than conservative run britain.

the level of thought and debate on the issue can be incredibly superficial.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 06, 2021, 09:03:31 AM
A UI would have to manage the North 's problems better than the Union with GB does.
How likely is that?

The North has high poverty levels and low productivity. Plus trauma.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 06, 2021, 04:31:09 PM
Are Social welfare payments in the North being cut by £20 per week ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on October 06, 2021, 04:39:01 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 06, 2021, 09:03:31 AM
A UI would have to manage the North 's problems better than the Union with GB does.
How likely is that?

The North has high poverty levels and low productivity. Plus trauma.

Reparations for starters
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on October 06, 2021, 04:52:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 06, 2021, 04:31:09 PM
Are Social welfare payments in the North being cut by £20 per week ?
People on universal credit were getting an extra £20 a week since covid are now not getting the extra £20.

Meanwhile every industry in the country is crying out for staff.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on October 06, 2021, 09:21:52 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on October 06, 2021, 04:52:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 06, 2021, 04:31:09 PM
Are Social welfare payments in the North being cut by £20 per week ?
People on universal credit were getting an extra £20 a week since covid are now not getting the extra £20.

Meanwhile every industry in the country is crying out for staff.
I don't think you understand what UC actually is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on October 06, 2021, 09:49:43 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 06, 2021, 09:21:52 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on October 06, 2021, 04:52:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 06, 2021, 04:31:09 PM
Are Social welfare payments in the North being cut by £20 per week ?
People on universal credit were getting an extra £20 a week since covid are now not getting the extra £20.

Meanwhile every industry in the country is crying out for staff.
I don't think you understand what UC actually is.
Free money?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.

It's another example of how run down the NI has economy has become in the last 100 years.
From once being an industrial powerhouse to being a being a state where welfare and benefits are so precious.

If the kids were asked about whether they would like to live in a country where they could work for a Google, Amazon or a Microsoft, or whether free doctor visits was more important...

Btw. I've been to the doctor once in the last 10 years. How ill are people in the sick counties?

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: grounded on October 06, 2021, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

I'm amazed that's not already up in Ben Lowry's Twitter account!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on October 06, 2021, 10:41:43 PM
Quote from: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.

It's another example of how run down the NI has economy has become in the last 100 years.
From once being an industrial powerhouse to being a being a state where welfare and benefits are so precious.

If the kids were asked about whether they would like to live in a country where they could work for a Google, Amazon or a Microsoft, or whether free doctor visits was more important...

Btw. I've been to the doctor once in the last 10 years. How ill are people in the sick counties?

That's great. Think yourself lucky you are healthy. Many are not. So don't look down your nose at people less fortunate than yourself

As for people struggling, I seen one clip today of one woman saying how the £20 cut will affect her and her kids. So it's understandable why the prospect of paying a fee every time you visit a doctor might have untold consequences for struggling families
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 11:00:12 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 06, 2021, 10:41:43 PM
Quote from: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.

It's another example of how run down the NI has economy has become in the last 100 years.
From once being an industrial powerhouse to being a being a state where welfare and benefits are so precious.

If the kids were asked about whether they would like to live in a country where they could work for a Google, Amazon or a Microsoft, or whether free doctor visits was more important...

Btw. I've been to the doctor once in the last 10 years. How ill are people in the sick counties?

That's great. Think yourself lucky you are healthy. Many are not. So don't look down your nose at people less fortunate than yourself

As for people struggling, I seen one clip today of one woman saying how the £20 cut will affect her and her kids. So it's understandable why the prospect of paying a fee every time you visit a doctor might have untold consequences for struggling families
The dole is a lot higher in the South and people who are low earners get medical cover anyway.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on October 06, 2021, 11:40:16 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 06, 2021, 10:41:43 PM
Quote from: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.

It's another example of how run down the NI has economy has become in the last 100 years.
From once being an industrial powerhouse to being a being a state where welfare and benefits are so precious.

If the kids were asked about whether they would like to live in a country where they could work for a Google, Amazon or a Microsoft, or whether free doctor visits was more important...

Btw. I've been to the doctor once in the last 10 years. How ill are people in the sick counties?

That's great. Think yourself lucky you are healthy. Many are not. So don't look down your nose at people less fortunate than yourself

As for people struggling, I seen one clip today of one woman saying how the £20 cut will affect her and her kids. So it's understandable why the prospect of paying a fee every time you visit a doctor might have untold consequences for struggling families

No. That woman on the news would be on a medical card and wouldn't pay for GP visits anyway. This is the big myth pedalled by unionism, that those on the breadline will be forced to fork over €60 everytime they need to see a Doctor, when it just isn't the case.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 07, 2021, 08:45:38 AM
Reading this thread reveals a lot of ignorance of the Southern Health system in the northern contributors, myself included. There is no doubt that those espousing unity will need to address how the health system in a UI would work. That said there is a lot of inefficiency in the HSC in the North and especially around border areas economies could be made which would improve health care in border counties in both jurisdictions. The biggest issue though is the inbred repugnance of any thing remotely Irish in the loyalist fringes. You only have to watch Paddy Kielty's documentary on NI100 to see that its being handed on. This stops them embracing any type of cross border co-operation even if it benefits NI. How do you address that and avoid escalating violence?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on October 07, 2021, 09:35:56 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 06, 2021, 11:40:16 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 06, 2021, 10:41:43 PM
Quote from: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.

It's another example of how run down the NI has economy has become in the last 100 years.
From once being an industrial powerhouse to being a being a state where welfare and benefits are so precious.

If the kids were asked about whether they would like to live in a country where they could work for a Google, Amazon or a Microsoft, or whether free doctor visits was more important...

Btw. I've been to the doctor once in the last 10 years. How ill are people in the sick counties?

That's great. Think yourself lucky you are healthy. Many are not. So don't look down your nose at people less fortunate than yourself

As for people struggling, I seen one clip today of one woman saying how the £20 cut will affect her and her kids. So it's understandable why the prospect of paying a fee every time you visit a doctor might have untold consequences for struggling families

No. That woman on the news would be on a medical card and wouldn't pay for GP visits anyway. This is the big myth pedalled by unionism, that those on the breadline will be forced to fork over €60 everytime they need to see a Doctor, when it just isn't the case.

Well yes, fair enough. But the point was a £20 a week drop is significant for a  struggling family. Everyday issues like food, heat, clothes has a knockon effect to general health which in the end results in medical issues. And the health service, north and south,  won't always be what  it is now
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dag Dog on October 07, 2021, 09:53:30 AM

https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

Quote
If we go back to Partition in 1921, 80 per cent of the industrial output of the entire island of Ireland came from the six counties that would become Northern Ireland, largely centred on Belfast. This was where all Irish industry was based. Northern Irish entrepreneurs and inventors were at the forefront of industrial innovation. By 1911, Belfast was the biggest city in Ireland and the north-east was by far the richest part of the island.

The collapse of the once-dynamic Northern Irish economy versus that of the Republic is stunning. Having been a fraction of the North's at independence, the Republic's industrial output is now far greater than that of Northern Ireland. Exports of goods and services from the Republic are €282.4bn; total exports from the North stand at a paltry €10.1bn. This obviously reflects the investment of multinationals, but it also underscores just how far ahead is the Republic's industrial base. Producing close to 30 times more exports highlights a vast difference in the globalis­ation of business. In the Republic, one in six people are foreign-born — higher than the UK. In the North it is fewer than one in 20. According to the most comparable international indicators, income per head is now €22,000 in the once wealthy Northern Ireland and €38,000 in the once impoverished Republic of Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 07, 2021, 08:45:38 AMThe biggest issue though is the inbred repugnance of any thing remotely Irish in the loyalist fringes. You only have to watch Paddy Kielty's documentary on NI100 to see that its being handed on. This stops them embracing any type of cross border co-operation even if it benefits NI. How do you address that and avoid escalating violence?
Loyalists are perhaps the most politically unintelligible group of people in Europe. Certainly in the UK. These are people who don't care about real issues. Everything is secondary to their culture and the constitutional status of NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on October 07, 2021, 11:57:30 AM
Quote from: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.

It's another example of how run down the NI has economy has become in the last 100 years.
From once being an industrial powerhouse to being a being a state where welfare and benefits are so precious.

If the kids were asked about whether they would like to live in a country where they could work for a Google, Amazon or a Microsoft, or whether free doctor visits was more important...

Btw. I've been to the doctor once in the last 10 years. How ill are people in the sick counties?

Your last paragraph sorta sums up my father-in-law's sentiments. "If people had to pay, they wouldn't be going in for minor aches and pains".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on October 07, 2021, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 07, 2021, 11:57:30 AM
Quote from: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.

It's another example of how run down the NI has economy has become in the last 100 years.
From once being an industrial powerhouse to being a being a state where welfare and benefits are so precious.

If the kids were asked about whether they would like to live in a country where they could work for a Google, Amazon or a Microsoft, or whether free doctor visits was more important...

Btw. I've been to the doctor once in the last 10 years. How ill are people in the sick counties?

Your last paragraph sorta sums up my father-in-law's sentiments. "If people had to pay, they wouldn't be going in for minor aches and pains".
He has a good point.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Saffrongael on October 07, 2021, 05:54:02 PM
Half the people going to GPs in 6 counties with the sole purpose of building medical history for DLA
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on October 07, 2021, 05:59:55 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 07, 2021, 11:57:30 AM
Quote from: Dag Dog on October 06, 2021, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2021, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 05, 2021, 12:25:18 AM
My daughter attends a Catholic grammar school in the 6 counties.  She arrived home this evening to tell me about a poll their history teacher did today ... Hands up everyone in the class who would vote for a United Ireland in a border poll.  From a class of 26 14/15 year olds, only 4 hands went up in favour of a UI.

She asked me to guess before telling me the answer, I guessed 18 for a UI, a long way off.  The dominant theme for the vast majority of the class not voting in favour of a UI was having to pay to see a doctor in the south.  A rather fickle reason in my opinion, and I do hope this generation of voters will be more in tune with the positives vs the negatives of a UI by the time they get their chance to vote ... which in all likelihood will be in the next 10 years.

By no means a scientific poll, but one which I found a little shocking for a Catholic school in the north.

Depressing. I really have no idea why the pay to see your GP line gets used over and over. It really is nothing in the bigger picture.
I think nationalism needs to do more to educate the public about the benefits of a UI.
"Yes, if you are in employment, you will pay €50 to see a GP. However, you would be earning an extra €10,000 per year."
As well as that, less and less people will be paying to see a GP because of Sláintecare.
You can bet your ass the waiting time discrepancy between North and south is worse now than 10 months ago.

It's another example of how run down the NI has economy has become in the last 100 years.
From once being an industrial powerhouse to being a being a state where welfare and benefits are so precious.

If the kids were asked about whether they would like to live in a country where they could work for a Google, Amazon or a Microsoft, or whether free doctor visits was more important...

Btw. I've been to the doctor once in the last 10 years. How ill are people in the sick counties?

Your last paragraph sorta sums up my father-in-law's sentiments. "If people had to pay, they wouldn't be going in for minor aches and pains".

This is a very common point of view up here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 07, 2021, 06:46:47 PM
It is a bit shocking in a grammar school. You'd expect grammar school students would want to be doctors, not worried about the cost of going to one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 07, 2021, 07:18:40 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 07, 2021, 08:45:38 AMThe biggest issue though is the inbred repugnance of any thing remotely Irish in the loyalist fringes. You only have to watch Paddy Kielty's documentary on NI100 to see that its being handed on. This stops them embracing any type of cross border co-operation even if it benefits NI. How do you address that and avoid escalating violence?
Loyalists are perhaps the most politically unintelligible group of people in Europe. Certainly in the UK. These are people who don't care about real issues. Everything is secondary to their culture and the constitutional status of NI.
and Bonfires of course!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on October 07, 2021, 07:21:29 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 07, 2021, 08:45:38 AMThe biggest issue though is the inbred repugnance of any thing remotely Irish in the loyalist fringes. You only have to watch Paddy Kielty's documentary on NI100 to see that its being handed on. This stops them embracing any type of cross border co-operation even if it benefits NI. How do you address that and avoid escalating violence?
Loyalists are perhaps the most politically unintelligible group of people in Europe. Certainly in the UK. These are people who don't care about real issues. Everything is secondary to their culture and the constitutional status of NI.
Even so, the level of ignorance and repugnance did come as a shock (to an innocent southern northerner) when landing into a NI Centenary web page such as this
https://twitter.com/NICentenary2021?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor (https://twitter.com/NICentenary2021?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 17, 2021, 04:27:40 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/is-britain-now-pushing-for-a-post-brexit-border-in-the-celtic-sea-1.4701570?mode=amp

Of course there is another way forward – a united Ireland following a border poll, all inside the EU single market.
And if the current drama does develop into a serious crisis, then it can only add to the political push for a poll to happen, even if a lot of the groundwork for reunification remains unfinished.

Perhaps this will all settle for now if some kind of UK/EU deal can be done – and the EU has offered more than the UK will have expected. Let's hope so. But you wouldn't bet on it. The Pandora's box opened by Brexit is not going to shut any time soon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 17, 2021, 04:28:54 AM
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/northern-ireland/reunification-of-ireland-is-close-says-top-economist-posen-40920667.html

The reunification of Ireland will take place "within five to 10 years" because the conflict between politics and the economy under the NI Protocol is not sustainable, an economist has said.

Dr Adam S Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he believed there was "no good option" for the future of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 17, 2021, 02:00:07 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 17, 2021, 04:28:54 AM
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/northern-ireland/reunification-of-ireland-is-close-says-top-economist-posen-40920667.html

The reunification of Ireland will take place "within five to 10 years" because the conflict between politics and the economy under the NI Protocol is not sustainable, an economist has said.

Dr Adam S Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he believed there was "no good option" for the future of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Posen's point is that for NI to have the "best of both worlds" under the NI Protocol required "political maturity" and it won't get it. So the Protocol setup could lead to benefits for NI but London and the Unionists will sabotage this.
In its first year, that seems a reasonable characterisation of events so far.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on October 17, 2021, 05:37:30 PM
Gone copy and paste that article in seafoid please?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on October 17, 2021, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 17, 2021, 02:00:07 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 17, 2021, 04:28:54 AM
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/northern-ireland/reunification-of-ireland-is-close-says-top-economist-posen-40920667.html

The reunification of Ireland will take place "within five to 10 years" because the conflict between politics and the economy under the NI Protocol is not sustainable, an economist has said.

Dr Adam S Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he believed there was "no good option" for the future of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Posen's point is that for NI to have the "best of both worlds" under the NI Protocol required "political maturity" and it won't get it. So the Protocol setup could lead to benefits for NI but London and the Unionists will sabotage this.
In its first year, that seems a reasonable characterisation of events so far.

What do we want?
- to pay more tax on sausages
When do we want it?
- Now!

The gerrymandered statelet could become an economic boomtown. But no, we can't be having that! A basket case it is, and a basket case it shall remain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 17, 2021, 07:10:24 PM
Has to be like "the rest of the UK" ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on October 22, 2021, 07:26:54 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 17, 2021, 07:10:24 PM
Has to be like "the rest of the UK" ;)

Sin é. In the eyes of wee Sammy and smug Jeffrey that trumps everything.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 22, 2021, 09:23:02 AM
Once it's not Abortion laws or bilingual Road signs of course!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on October 22, 2021, 10:09:18 AM
Only our rivers run free up to number 1 on itunes charts apparently. Things you love to see.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 22, 2021, 10:12:41 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 17, 2021, 02:00:07 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 17, 2021, 04:28:54 AM
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/northern-ireland/reunification-of-ireland-is-close-says-top-economist-posen-40920667.html

The reunification of Ireland will take place "within five to 10 years" because the conflict between politics and the economy under the NI Protocol is not sustainable, an economist has said.

Dr Adam S Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he believed there was "no good option" for the future of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Posen's point is that for NI to have the "best of both worlds" under the NI Protocol required "political maturity" and it won't get it. So the Protocol setup could lead to benefits for NI but London and the Unionists will sabotage this.
In its first year, that seems a reasonable characterisation of events so far.
10 years is too early imo.
But things fall apart sooner than things are  ready
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: grounded on October 22, 2021, 10:53:53 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewPRLevi/status/1450962183907692544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1450962183907692544%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think we need to learn the lessons of Brexit.....don't vote for something without understanding the implications of what is being voted for.
A lot of work needs to be done on all sides of the debate to get a true picture of what a UI would look like in terms of economics, education and health.
The problem we have as that current political unionism refuse to even explore what a UI would look like and what it would mean for the unionist tradition. I think a lot of reasoning behind that is disingenuous - the whole "part of the UK" stance is a way to keep themselves in power.
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.
I think before a vote can take place all of those issues need to be addresses with an agreement in principal around what would happen and on what timescale should a UI vote win through.
There will still be people who vote for and against regardless of the detail, but I believe the vote will be won or lost on the "sensible" voters who base their vote on practical information.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on October 22, 2021, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think we need to learn the lessons of Brexit.....don't vote for something without understanding the implications of what is being voted for.
A lot of work needs to be done on all sides of the debate to get a true picture of what a UI would look like in terms of economics, education and health.
The problem we have as that current political unionism refuse to even explore what a UI would look like and what it would mean for the unionist tradition. I think a lot of reasoning behind that is disingenuous - the whole "part of the UK" stance is a way to keep themselves in power.
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.
I think before a vote can take place all of those issues need to be addresses with an agreement in principal around what would happen and on what timescale should a UI vote win through.
There will still be people who vote for and against regardless of the detail, but I believe the vote will be won or lost on the "sensible" voters who base their vote on practical information.
Just on that bit Tbrick, I understand what you mean. However I don't know if Unionists realise or maybe it is that they don't care, as everything other than keeping the union is secondary to them, but they would actually have even more power in a unified Ireland. They would have even more say in the north of the country and they would even have a say in the rest of the country, and probably even a greater influence on the European stage.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 22, 2021, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think we need to learn the lessons of Brexit.....don't vote for something without understanding the implications of what is being voted for.
A lot of work needs to be done on all sides of the debate to get a true picture of what a UI would look like in terms of economics, education and health.
The problem we have as that current political unionism refuse to even explore what a UI would look like and what it would mean for the unionist tradition. I think a lot of reasoning behind that is disingenuous - the whole "part of the UK" stance is a way to keep themselves in power.
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.
I think before a vote can take place all of those issues need to be addresses with an agreement in principal around what would happen and on what timescale should a UI vote win through.
There will still be people who vote for and against regardless of the detail, but I believe the vote will be won or lost on the "sensible" voters who base their vote on practical information.
The abortion vote was done very well. A citizens assembly of 100 was drawn together to go through all of the issues peacefully and thoroughly.
Once their work was done the conclusions were made available. The vote was calm . It could have gone arseways otherwise.

Something similar would need to be done for reunification plus the appropriate institutions would need to be built.
The Brits threw money at the troubles post 97. Reunification is going to need a lot of money.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on October 22, 2021, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think we need to learn the lessons of Brexit.....don't vote for something without understanding the implications of what is being voted for.
A lot of work needs to be done on all sides of the debate to get a true picture of what a UI would look like in terms of economics, education and health.
The problem we have as that current political unionism refuse to even explore what a UI would look like and what it would mean for the unionist tradition. I think a lot of reasoning behind that is disingenuous - the whole "part of the UK" stance is a way to keep themselves in power.
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.
I think before a vote can take place all of those issues need to be addresses with an agreement in principal around what would happen and on what timescale should a UI vote win through.
There will still be people who vote for and against regardless of the detail, but I believe the vote will be won or lost on the "sensible" voters who base their vote on practical information.

Unfortunately most unionists wont. Its a flag and thats it. The NHS keeps getting mentioned as the reason to keep the union. The same NHS that is f@cked especially in northern ireland and again unfortunately plenty of suppossed nationalists swallow the shite.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 22, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on October 22, 2021, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think we need to learn the lessons of Brexit.....don't vote for something without understanding the implications of what is being voted for.
A lot of work needs to be done on all sides of the debate to get a true picture of what a UI would look like in terms of economics, education and health.
The problem we have as that current political unionism refuse to even explore what a UI would look like and what it would mean for the unionist tradition. I think a lot of reasoning behind that is disingenuous - the whole "part of the UK" stance is a way to keep themselves in power.
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.
I think before a vote can take place all of those issues need to be addresses with an agreement in principal around what would happen and on what timescale should a UI vote win through.
There will still be people who vote for and against regardless of the detail, but I believe the vote will be won or lost on the "sensible" voters who base their vote on practical information.
I think addressing NI productivity could be the key to getting Unionists on board. The Union was a disaster for the NI economy once the heavy industry of shipbuilding etc went tits up.
Ulster should not be poor. If it had a similar model to Leinster and Munster things would be much better.

Unfortunately most unionists wont. Its a flag and thats it. The NHS keeps getting mentioned as the reason to keep the union. The same NHS that is f@cked especially in northern ireland and again unfortunately plenty of suppossed nationalists swallow the shite.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: mouview on October 22, 2021, 01:29:55 PM
Quote from: seafoid on October 22, 2021, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think we need to learn the lessons of Brexit.....don't vote for something without understanding the implications of what is being voted for.
A lot of work needs to be done on all sides of the debate to get a true picture of what a UI would look like in terms of economics, education and health.
The problem we have as that current political unionism refuse to even explore what a UI would look like and what it would mean for the unionist tradition. I think a lot of reasoning behind that is disingenuous - the whole "part of the UK" stance is a way to keep themselves in power.
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.
I think before a vote can take place all of those issues need to be addresses with an agreement in principal around what would happen and on what timescale should a UI vote win through.
There will still be people who vote for and against regardless of the detail, but I believe the vote will be won or lost on the "sensible" voters who base their vote on practical information.
The abortion vote was done very well. A citizens assembly of 100 was drawn together to go through all of the issues peacefully and thoroughly.
Once their work was done the conclusions were made available. The vote was calm . It could have gone arseways otherwise.

Something similar would need to be done for reunification plus the appropriate institutions would need to be built.
The Brits threw money at the troubles post 97. Reunification is going to need a lot of money.

There would be a lot available from the EU and USA for it though, a lot of well-disposed goodwill towards it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 22, 2021, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.

A lot of people in the 6 counties are more focussed on cheap healthcare than good healthcare.

Quote from: mouview on October 22, 2021, 01:29:55 PM
There would be a lot available from the EU and USA for it though, a lot of well-disposed goodwill towards it.

There would be some money available, but there is a limit to the extent to which taxpayers in Germany or New Jersey should be expected to fund NI. Success requires that the British make a reasonable settlement in regard to pensions etc and that the economy in NI grows to to be more like the 26 counties. It is in the interest of the British to do this, but as we have seen recently they are quite capable of acting irrationally and there is a risk of playing tough on NI to avoid encouraging Scotland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on October 22, 2021, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.

Economics will not cause Unionists to vote for a united Ireland. The 26 counties was an economic basket case for a long time and yet there was never any thought of trying to rejoin the UK.

If you think they would vote on economics try a little thought experiment. Imagine Brexit is a great success (yes I know, but humour me). The Tories manage to create an off shore tax haven booming economy and the North ends up more successful than the south. Do you think there would be any great push for the 26 to rejoin the UK?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: BennyCake on October 22, 2021, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think we need to learn the lessons of Brexit.....don't vote for something without understanding the implications of what is being voted for.
A lot of work needs to be done on all sides of the debate to get a true picture of what a UI would look like in terms of economics, education and health.
The problem we have as that current political unionism refuse to even explore what a UI would look like and what it would mean for the unionist tradition. I think a lot of reasoning behind that is disingenuous - the whole "part of the UK" stance is a way to keep themselves in power.
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.
I think before a vote can take place all of those issues need to be addresses with an agreement in principal around what would happen and on what timescale should a UI vote win through.
There will still be people who vote for and against regardless of the detail, but I believe the vote will be won or lost on the "sensible" voters who base their vote on practical information.

Why would they? They're Unionists after all.

Many many unionists will vote to remain in the union, regardless Of how badly off they are. In the same way many nationalists will choose to vote for a UI regardless of how badly off they might be.

So you could talk and plan for it until the cows come home, but the vast majority of both sides have their minds already made up.

If you want a UI, have the vote. And if it wins, well you better be prepared for the backlash. It won't be pretty.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 22, 2021, 03:10:34 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM

There will still be people who vote for and against regardless of the detail, but I believe the vote will be won or lost on the "sensible" voters who base their vote on practical information.
Absolutely!
The "others" will be the decision makers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 22, 2021, 03:12:28 PM
Quote from: dec on October 22, 2021, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.

Economics will not cause Unionists to vote for a united Ireland. The 26 counties was an economic basket case for a long time and yet there was never any thought of trying to rejoin the UK.

If you think they would vote on economics try a little thought experiment. Imagine Brexit is a great success (yes I know, but humour me). The Tories manage to create an off shore tax haven booming economy and the North ends up more successful than the south. Do you think there would be any great push for the 26 to rejoin the UK?
South Tyrol was allocated to Italy after WW1 even though it is majority German speaking. It should be part of Austria. During WW2 to get Italy onside Hitler recognised it as Italian

South Tyrol today is well off and has a lot of autonomy. Everyone is happy
Giorgio Moroder is from South Tyrol.

https://youtu.be/5m4ZkEqQrn0
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 22, 2021, 03:38:55 PM
Quote from: dec on October 22, 2021, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.

Economics will not cause Unionists to vote for a united Ireland. The 26 counties was an economic basket case for a long time and yet there was never any thought of trying to rejoin the UK.

If you think they would vote on economics try a little thought experiment. Imagine Brexit is a great success (yes I know, but humour me). The Tories manage to create an off shore tax haven booming economy and the North ends up more successful than the south. Do you think there would be any great push for the 26 to rejoin the UK?

Of course out and out unionists will not be swayed by any data like this, but the rest of the population will. Hard core Unionists are not in the majority in NI, most people are nationalist or are capable of being persuaded.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 22, 2021, 03:38:55 PM
Quote from: dec on October 22, 2021, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on October 22, 2021, 11:34:44 AM
I think when it comes to it, the majority of people will vote based on economics and health. Will they be better off financially and will they get better health care in a UI.

Economics will not cause Unionists to vote for a united Ireland. The 26 counties was an economic basket case for a long time and yet there was never any thought of trying to rejoin the UK.

If you think they would vote on economics try a little thought experiment. Imagine Brexit is a great success (yes I know, but humour me). The Tories manage to create an off shore tax haven booming economy and the North ends up more successful than the south. Do you think there would be any great push for the 26 to rejoin the UK?

Of course out and out unionists will not be swayed by any data like this, but the rest of the population will. Hard core Unionists are not in the majority in NI, most people are nationalist or are capable of being persuaded.

This is what I was trying to get to.
There are extreme views on both sides of the debate and then there is the middle grouping who are small "n" nationalist and small "u" unionists. I think that is a sizeable proportion of the population here and that grouping are more likely to be persuaded based on the bread and butter issues.

In terms of unionists not being swayed by economics, I wouldn't be too sure. Money is still king, look at how many of the unionist politicians in particular are making a fortune from non-political avenues. How often have wee seen the "Christian" unionist being caught out in some money making scandal (Robinsons, Paisley, Arlene) so they have form for abandoning their beliefs for money.
Agriculture is still a massive industry in NI and I would think the majority of "big" farmers are from the unionist tradition. EU subsidies are to be replaced and it is well documented that as a result farmers will be worse off in this regard out of Europe. I would imagine that if those same farmers had access to the EU money, they'd seriously consider what way to vote particularly if there's a mechanism for them still to retain their unionist culture (I hate using that word to describe unionism) in a UI.
The same is bound to be true of other industries too.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 22, 2021, 04:05:54 PM
I think it would be very interesting to show how much the Union has cost Unionists since 1950 . In 1950s Unionists were laughing at the South.
In the UK since 1980 peripheral regions have been shafted. Brexit is another kick in the nuts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 22, 2021, 04:22:01 PM
One hundred years ago there were three concerns for unionists; King and Empire; Money and Religion.

Now King and Empire can't be helped and to be honest one the present Monarch pass on the monarchy may not be worth much. Religion was always overrated, but things have changed enormously there.
On Money, there were two issues, a loss of trade possibilities and a fear of anyone with a few pound being heavily taxed . The trade thing is not a problem, there will be ample opportunity to make a living in the UI. However the demeanour of the main nationalist party in the North is that anyone who does work and earns a few quid will be heavily taxed. Now as people are poor in the North these may mostly be in the south, so the calculation is different.

Quote from: seafoid on October 22, 2021, 04:05:54 PM
I think it would be very interesting to show how much the Union has cost Unionists since 1950 . In 1950s Unionists were laughing at the South.
In the UK since 1980 peripheral regions have been shafted. Brexit is another kick in the nuts.


NI has not recovered its 2008 economy, like most parts of the UK. The only two parts of these islands to have significantly moved on beyond 2008 levels is London and the ROI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 22, 2021, 04:46:10 PM
When NI is good it can be top notch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryg7ZB10hKQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRpntHflrNo

A UI would be more likely to generate outperformance.
NI needs a new economic model and it needs to address all of the problems such as productivity and education that have been festering for so long
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: In hiding on October 28, 2021, 12:55:45 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?
Yeah, I consider myself Irish so obviously he represents me
Do you think I am not Irish because I was born in Tyrone?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on October 28, 2021, 09:35:13 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Na, Gerry
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on October 28, 2021, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes, he's the President of Ireland, I was born in Ireland so he's my President as much as he is for anyone else in Ireland, should they be from Cork, Kerry, Armagh or Tyrone. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 10:53:18 AM
Quote from: In hiding on October 28, 2021, 12:55:45 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?
Yeah, I consider myself Irish so obviously he represents me
Do you think I am not Irish because I was born in Tyrone?
The questioner never suggested that so chip off shoulder please.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on October 28, 2021, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 10:53:18 AM
Quote from: In hiding on October 28, 2021, 12:55:45 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?
Yeah, I consider myself Irish so obviously he represents me
Do you think I am not Irish because I was born in Tyrone?
The questioner never suggested that so chip off shoulder please.

I suppose it's up to each individual but why would we not regard Michael D as our president?

I'd like to vote on it for sure and that would be the next step for us.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on October 28, 2021, 11:27:57 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.

no fanks, NI/ROI both illegitimate, would sooner follow the rugby and cricket
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Farrandeelin on October 28, 2021, 11:28:27 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D
For football team, which is what they're officially called to be honest.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:37:22 AM
Quote from: tiempo on October 28, 2021, 11:27:57 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.

no fanks, NI/ROI both illegitimate, would sooner follow the rugby and cricket

Eh?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 11:45:52 AM
News of the Good Friday Agreement hasn't reached Tiempo's cave yet ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:51:40 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 28, 2021, 11:28:27 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D
For football team, which is what they're officially called to be honest.
Ireland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Like something a true partitionist/stooper would say. I assume you call the O6 "Northern Ireland" as well then?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on October 28, 2021, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 11:45:52 AM
News of the Good Friday Agreement hasn't reached Tiempo's cave yet ;D

Back to the shires with ya
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 11:57:39 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Like something a true partitionist/stooper would say. I assume you call the O6 "Northern Ireland" as well then?
Michelle O'Neill is Deputy First Minister of.... ?
Some Sinn Féin people are Ministers in the.......Executive.
SF have 25 or 30 MLAs in the ......Assembly.
SF negotiated and are ardent supporters of the GFA.
How many times is "Northern Ireland" mentioned in the Agreement.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 12:02:01 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 11:57:39 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Like something a true partitionist/stooper would say. I assume you call the O6 "Northern Ireland" as well then?
Michelle O'Neill is Deputy First Minister of.... ?
Some Sinn Féin people are Ministers in the.......Executive.
SF have 25 or 30 MLAs in the ......Assembly.
SF negotiated and are ardent supporters of the GFA.
How many times is "Northern Ireland" mentioned in the Agreement.
Oh that old chestnut. Spoken like a true FFGer
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 12:05:45 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Like something a true partitionist/stooper would say. I assume you call the O6 "Northern Ireland" as well then?

I really haven't a clue what you are talking about to be honest. I can only assume that you are still in your late teens-stooper lol or you are just picking for  a fight based on some nonsensical theory of what constitutes a Irish man. I am a Gael first and foremost.

https://www.fai.ie/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 28, 2021, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 11:57:39 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Like something a true partitionist/stooper would say. I assume you call the O6 "Northern Ireland" as well then?
Michelle O'Neill is Deputy First Minister of.... ?
Some Sinn Féin people are Ministers in the.......Executive.
SF have 25 or 30 MLAs in the ......Assembly.
SF negotiated and are ardent supporters of the GFA.
How many times is "Northern Ireland" mentioned in the Agreement.
This is pure trolling and yet again a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the northern nationalist experience under unionist rule.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on October 28, 2021, 12:35:32 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 28, 2021, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 11:57:39 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Like something a true partitionist/stooper would say. I assume you call the O6 "Northern Ireland" as well then?
Michelle O'Neill is Deputy First Minister of.... ?
Some Sinn Féin people are Ministers in the.......Executive.
SF have 25 or 30 MLAs in the ......Assembly.
SF negotiated and are ardent supporters of the GFA.
How many times is "Northern Ireland" mentioned in the Agreement.
This is pure trolling and yet again a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the northern nationalist experience under unionist rule.

Part of the mantra get busy pandering to a bunch of bigots up north in power sharing coalition but you aren't fit to lead in the south as our gunmen are somehow different than yours.

Both states are rotten to the core, partitionist DUP/FFG are the biggest obstacles to unification knowing its game over when the country is put back on course.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on October 28, 2021, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Expert level trolling here for a Thursday morning, kudos
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 28, 2021, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 11:57:39 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Like something a true partitionist/stooper would say. I assume you call the O6 "Northern Ireland" as well then?
Michelle O'Neill is Deputy First Minister of.... ?
Some Sinn Féin people are Ministers in the.......Executive.
SF have 25 or 30 MLAs in the ......Assembly.
SF negotiated and are ardent supporters of the GFA.
How many times is "Northern Ireland" mentioned in the Agreement.
This is pure trolling and yet again a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the northern nationalist experience under unionist rule.

?????
Unionists haven't ruled since 1972 ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on October 28, 2021, 02:59:56 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 28, 2021, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 11:57:39 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on October 28, 2021, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 28, 2021, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?

Yes.
Dublin my capital.
ROI my national football team.
Hurling my first sport.
Gaeilge my language.
Yet you write "ROI" instead of Ireland ;D

Because clearly that is their name or am I missing something-either that or Éire
Like something a true partitionist/stooper would say. I assume you call the O6 "Northern Ireland" as well then?
Michelle O'Neill is Deputy First Minister of.... ?
Some Sinn Féin people are Ministers in the.......Executive.
SF have 25 or 30 MLAs in the ......Assembly.
SF negotiated and are ardent supporters of the GFA.
How many times is "Northern Ireland" mentioned in the Agreement.
This is pure trolling and yet again a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the northern nationalist experience under unionist rule.

?????
Unionists haven't ruled since 1972 ;)
Look at the fcukin state, it reflects one community, one culture and all else is subordinate. By all means ask questions but this contribution shows a distinct ignorance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 03:11:11 PM
It may do but shinner supporters slagging off SDLPers for saying "Northern Ireland" while their Party is enthusiastically taking up "Northern Ireland" positions and backing a Treaty which says "Northern Ireland" all through it......is ever so slightly bemusing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 04:38:42 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 28, 2021, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2021, 10:53:18 AM
Quote from: In hiding on October 28, 2021, 12:55:45 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2021, 12:36:32 AM
More a  question for nordies.
Do you regard President Micheal as your president?
Yeah, I consider myself Irish so obviously he represents me
Do you think I am not Irish because I was born in Tyrone?
The questioner never suggested that so chip off shoulder please.

I suppose it's up to each individual but why would we not regard Michael D as our president?

I'd like to vote on it for sure and that would be the next step for us.
Possibly a disconnect because you don't have the vote on it -  therefore no decision to make, as well as a visible absence of the election campaigning.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mikhail Prokhorov on October 28, 2021, 05:40:23 PM
angry nordies on tilt again i see  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on October 29, 2021, 10:21:22 AM
We don't get to vote for any head of state up here in the occupied 6. Probably time the government  got serious about representing all its citizens on this island if reunification is a genuine aspiration.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 29, 2021, 11:12:13 AM
All Irish citizens living outside the 26 Cos should have a vote in Presidential election and for some Seanad seats





Provided they make an annual Solidarity contribution of say €500 to the Exchequer ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smort on November 30, 2021, 04:06:59 PM
Not sure if this is exactly the right place for this.....but an improved rail system would certainly be a big part of a future Ireland. I'm sure we have all seen the maps of how the North-West of the island and west of Ulster has been neglected. Hopefully this review can lead to much needed expansion

https://strategicrailreview.com/ (https://strategicrailreview.com/)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on November 30, 2021, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: smort on November 30, 2021, 04:06:59 PM
Not sure if this is exactly the right place for this.....but an improved rail system would certainly be a big part of a future Ireland. I'm sure we have all seen the maps of how the North-West of the island and west of Ulster has been neglected. Hopefully this review can lead to much needed expansion

https://strategicrailreview.com/ (https://strategicrailreview.com/)
Probably just a talking shop. Cant even run the rail network that we currently have. We love the car too much, especially in the north and especially in Belfast
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: An Watcher on November 30, 2021, 07:30:56 PM
So let's forget about it then!! Always laugh at belfasties and others complain about train when it isn't even an option for those in the west.  Let's get it back in the west
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: grounded on November 30, 2021, 08:45:27 PM
Quote from: An Watcher on November 30, 2021, 07:30:56 PM
So let's forget about it then!! Always laugh at belfasties and others complain about train when it isn't even an option for those in the west.  Let's get it back in the west

Fascinating to see the train network in 2020 vs 1920 in Ireland


https://www.indy100.com/news/ireland-train-network-1920-2020-viral-map-9299011
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on December 01, 2021, 10:05:48 AM
Quote from: An Watcher on November 30, 2021, 07:30:56 PM
So let's forget about it then!! Always laugh at belfasties and others complain about train when it isn't even an option for those in the west.  Let's get it back in the west
Not at all though I do agree with you. Upgrade line to Derry and build to Armagh and Dungannon would be my priorities.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Antrim Coaster on December 01, 2021, 10:33:21 AM
The tearing up of the rail network west of the Bann was done on a sectarian basis.

The 6 County government decided they weren't for subsidising the rail network for Taigs to travel to Bundoran for their days out.

At the time the Derry Road rail line (Portadown, Dungannon, Omagh, Derry) was actually the only part of the northern rail network that was in profit.

There's a good documentary on TG4 about the northern rail network, Iarnród Uladh,

It wasnt too long ago that Danny Kennedy the Transport Minister at the time wanted to close the line between Derry and Coleraine until Eamon McCann and his lads put a stop to his plans with the Into The West initiative.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on December 01, 2021, 10:58:05 AM
Quote from: Antrim Coaster on December 01, 2021, 10:33:21 AM
The tearing up of the rail network west of the Bann was done on a sectarian basis.

The 6 County government decided they weren't for subsidising the rail network for Taigs to travel to Bundoran for their days out.

At the time the Derry Road rail line (Portadown, Dungannon, Omagh, Derry) was actually the only part of the northern rail network that was in profit.

There's a good documentary on TG4 about the northern rail network, Iarnród Uladh,

It wasnt too long ago that Danny Kennedy the Transport Minister at the time wanted to close the line between Derry and Coleraine until Eamon McCann and his lads put a stop to his plans with the Into The West initiative.

There's a map somewhere with the rail map overlaid on the voting preference of those in the area.  The correlation between a nationalist vote and a lack of rail infrastructure couldn't be any clearer.

But both sides are as bad as each other...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clarshack on December 01, 2021, 01:40:43 PM
There were even train stations in Stewartstown and Coalisland...

https://www.facebook.com/291662990886163/photos/stewartstown-railway-station/2304287152957060/

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3838627792895875&set=pb.100063576577376.-2207520000..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tiempo on December 01, 2021, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Antrim Coaster on December 01, 2021, 10:33:21 AM
The tearing up of the rail network west of the Bann was done on a sectarian basis.

The 6 County government decided they weren't for subsidising the rail network for Taigs to travel to Bundoran for their days out.

At the time the Derry Road rail line (Portadown, Dungannon, Omagh, Derry) was actually the only part of the northern rail network that was in profit.

There's a good documentary on TG4 about the northern rail network, Iarnród Uladh,

It wasnt too long ago that Danny Kennedy the Transport Minister at the time wanted to close the line between Derry and Coleraine until Eamon McCann and his lads put a stop to his plans with the Into The West initiative.

Legend has it the local politicians went to Belfast to campaign against the removal of the Derry Road railway, in their wisdom they took the bus.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 01, 2021, 08:24:54 PM
The scandalous amputation of NI transport obviously had a sectarian aspect. But it also reflect myopic planning as they closed the lines to Banbridge and Comber also.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on December 01, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: general_lee on November 30, 2021, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: smort on November 30, 2021, 04:06:59 PM
Not sure if this is exactly the right place for this.....but an improved rail system would certainly be a big part of a future Ireland. I'm sure we have all seen the maps of how the North-West of the island and west of Ulster has been neglected. Hopefully this review can lead to much needed expansion

https://strategicrailreview.com/ (https://strategicrailreview.com/)
Probably just a talking shop. Cant even run the rail network that we currently have. We love the car too much, especially in the north and especially in Belfast

Ah, well - if there were a great park n ride setup from major outlying towns to Belfast, that may be sustainable.

But really the problem is that Belfast isn't dense enough to justify the kind of mass transit systems that the planners keep trying for.


The Glider is a f**king disaster. Translink will come on and say "ahh, but journeys are up X%" - without realising the end-goal of Glider isn't to get more people on buses.

The end-goal is to reduce emissions through reduced congestion. For that, its a complete f**king disaster as now thousands of cars spend many minutes longer getting down the same roads that now have permanent bus lanes on them so end result is emissions are up, not down.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on December 01, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
How many glider routes are there? Two? You can't really criticise Translink. They're just there to run public transport. They don't get to choose transport policy. You say Belfast isn't dense enough for mass transit system (which the glider isn't, hence why it's there instead of a tram) but the greater Belfast metropolitan area is almost 40% of the north's population. It has to have something and the glider is small fry compared to similar urban areas over in tan land.

I agree on park & ride facilities - they are the way forward but of course it will take the morons on the hill another 20 years to realise their potential. People will use the train if it is convenient to them plain and simple, if you re-linked Armagh and Dungannon to the network the trains would be bunged


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on December 01, 2021, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: general_lee on December 01, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
How many glider routes are there? Two? You can't really criticise Translink. They're just there to run public transport. They don't get to choose transport policy.

You think translink don't shape transport policy with their idiotic trade studies that are compiled by people so stupid they don't even know the right questions to ask? Seriously?

They've 2 glider routes f**king up 2 arteries and they want to f**k up another 2 with a north-south line. You fancy a single carriageway road all the way from city centre to carryduff? Be my guest. That'll definitely bring congestion and emissions down.



Quote from: general_lee on December 01, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
You say Belfast isn't dense enough for mass transit system (which the glider isn't, hence why it's there instead of a tram) but the greater Belfast metropolitan area is almost 40% of the north's population. It has to have something and the glider is small fry compared to similar urban areas over in tan land.

Glider is a mass transport system. Lower end yes, but mass transport nonetheless.

They would have got better value for money by installing the pay offboard facilities for normal route buses.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on December 01, 2021, 11:10:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on December 01, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
How many glider routes are there? Two? You can't really criticise Translink. They're just there to run public transport. They don't get to choose transport policy. You say Belfast isn't dense enough for mass transit system (which the glider isn't, hence why it's there instead of a tram) but the greater Belfast metropolitan area is almost 40% of the north's population. It has to have something and the glider is small fry compared to similar urban areas over in tan land.

I agree on park & ride facilities - they are the way forward but of course it will take the morons on the hill another 20 years to realise their potential. People will use the train if it is convenient to them plain and simple, if you re-linked Armagh and Dungannon to the network the trains would be bunged
[/b] Would it make that much of a difference? Not that hard to get fromArmagh/Dungannon to Portadown or Newry?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on December 01, 2021, 11:19:54 PM
But going from Ballygawley to DGN is fine, but having to travel on to portadown would make it pointless.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on December 02, 2021, 08:14:44 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on December 01, 2021, 11:10:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on December 01, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
How many glider routes are there? Two? You can't really criticise Translink. They're just there to run public transport. They don't get to choose transport policy. You say Belfast isn't dense enough for mass transit system (which the glider isn't, hence why it's there instead of a tram) but the greater Belfast metropolitan area is almost 40% of the north's population. It has to have something and the glider is small fry compared to similar urban areas over in tan land.

I agree on park & ride facilities - they are the way forward but of course it will take the morons on the hill another 20 years to realise their potential. People will use the train if it is convenient to them plain and simple, if you re-linked Armagh and Dungannon to the network the trains would be bunged
[/b] Would it make that much of a difference? Not that hard to get fromArmagh/Dungannon to Portadown or Newry?
I think you're missing the point. For a start, why would anyone from Armagh travel to Newry to get a commuter train to Belfast?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 11, 2021, 11:19:30 AM
Not yet!
Oh and we won't pay for it or change flag or anthem!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/large-majority-of-voters-favour-a-united-ireland-poll-finds-1.4752459?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Flarge-majority-of-voters-favour-a-united-ireland-poll-finds-1.4752459
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on December 11, 2021, 12:42:21 PM
Been saying it for years on here and to anyone who'll listen, I sincerely doubt if ROI would ever vote for a UI - especially with the realisation of what it will entail in practical terms, new flag, anthem police, taking on a basket case economy etc...  Unless there's a hoodwinking done a la Brexit (ignore reality) it'll never happen.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on December 11, 2021, 12:48:59 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 11, 2021, 12:42:21 PM
Been saying it for years on here and to anyone who'll listen, I sincerely doubt if ROI would ever vote for a UI - especially with the realisation of what it will entail in practical terms, new flag, anthem police, taking on a basket case economy etc...  Unless there's a hoodwinking done a la Brexit (ignore reality) it'll never happen.

Polling consistently shows a comfortable successful unity vote in the south. Its getting the north to 50% that is the problem.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on December 11, 2021, 12:54:25 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 11, 2021, 12:42:21 PM
Been saying it for years on here and to anyone who'll listen, I sincerely doubt if ROI would ever vote for a UI - especially with the realisation of what it will entail in practical terms, new flag, anthem police, taking on a basket case economy etc...  Unless there's a hoodwinking done a la Brexit (ignore reality) it'll never happen.

When it comes down to it, I seriously doubt if people in the south are going to veto unification over fluff like neutral flags and anthems.

Economy, services and so on, stuff that really matters, is a different issue.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 11, 2021, 01:23:28 PM
Yes J, pockets and economy.
Other stuff is just coloured cloth and awful dirges of songs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 11, 2021, 01:31:50 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 11, 2021, 12:42:21 PM
Been saying it for years on here and to anyone who'll listen, I sincerely doubt if ROI would ever vote for a UI - especially with the realisation of what it will entail in practical terms, new flag, anthem police, taking on a basket case economy etc...  Unless there's a hoodwinking done a la Brexit (ignore reality) it'll never happen.

Germany is the example here. West Germans were not bothered about unification before it happened But when the opportunity arose they cheered and drank beer, and then whined about it afterwards. I predict a similar sequence of events in Ireland.
Nobody wants to pay more taxes, it is surprising that these polls do show many people willing to do so. The important thing is that the British are made meet their obligations, for instance that they fund the pensions of those who worked for them.
One advantage of Brexit and the NI protocol is that is leading to more data about the actual NI economy, it is behind the ROI but perhaps does not require as much money as unionists suggest.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on December 11, 2021, 05:16:19 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 11, 2021, 12:48:59 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 11, 2021, 12:42:21 PM
Been saying it for years on here and to anyone who'll listen, I sincerely doubt if ROI would ever vote for a UI - especially with the realisation of what it will entail in practical terms, new flag, anthem police, taking on a basket case economy etc...  Unless there's a hoodwinking done a la Brexit (ignore reality) it'll never happen.

Polling consistently shows a comfortable successful unity vote in the south. Its getting the north to 50% that is the problem.
It isn't a serious discussion YET in the South (or North), the Irish Times article is an insight into the mindset that I think is a helluva lot more prevalent than  people think. If there was an honest debate about the realities of a UI before a vote it wouldn't pass in the ROI - IMO obviously.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on December 11, 2021, 05:42:17 PM
I think a irish Economy pales in comparison to the German one, that's why they recovered from unification. Ireland would struggle for a generation, likely more. So we want rid of the brits, but then want them to fund us to make it work. So much for standing on our own 2feet.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 11, 2021, 06:16:06 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 11, 2021, 05:42:17 PM
I think a irish Economy pales in comparison to the German one, that's why they recovered from unification. Ireland would struggle for a generation, likely more. So we want rid of the brits, but then want them to fund us to make it work. So much for standing on our own 2feet.

Who said anything about getting the Brits to to fund us? I said they should cover the pensions of those civil servants etc that worked for them and paid their pension contributions to them. The Irish economy is a tribute to the merits of independence, if NI has fallen behind then it the faulr of the Brits and why should they not pat for it?
East Germany required far far more work than NI ever will.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 11, 2021, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 11, 2021, 05:42:17 PM
I think a irish Economy pales in comparison to the German one, that's why they recovered from unification. Ireland would struggle for a generation, likely more. So we want rid of the brits, but then want them to fund us to make it work. So much for standing on our own 2feet.

It's called reparations for 800 years of exploitation, rape and pillage, just like every other country the bastards went into.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on December 11, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
Did India get any, or any other country they been in for that matter?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on December 11, 2021, 07:46:22 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 11, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
Did India get any, or any other country they been in for that matter?

It costs London over 12bn a year to prop up the failed statelet. Demand 120bn as final settlement, and after 10 years they are free. They'd bite your f**king hand off if they knew they'd got rid of those loyalist scum. It's not rocket science. Personally, I'd demand a minimum of 50 years, small beer for what they did to Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on December 11, 2021, 09:10:32 PM
According to the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS), Northern Ireland was one of nine UK regions to have a fiscal deficit in 2019.



The northwest, which includes Cumbria and the Greater Manchester area, had the biggest (£20.2 billion) followed by the West Midlands (£15 billion), Wales (£13.5 billion) and Scotland (£13.5 billion).



London, the southeast and the east of England had fiscal surpluses of £38.7 billion, £21.7 billion and £4 billion respectively and were therefore net contributors to the UK exchequer.

Thats the how and the where of who funds who in the UK

Now

Lets go at what this £9.4bn is composed of

£3.4 billion in pension payments paid by the British state to pensioners in Northern Ireland, which would continue continue to paid for as long as those pensioners are alive by the British government

North's share of the UK's national debt and the annual repayments arising from it. This was put at £2.4 billion in 2019.

£1.1bn which is the Norths payment to the UK defence budget, Compare this figure with the ROI annual spend of €1.1bn a year and it will give you an idea of where savings will be made when it comes to a United Ireland as I doubt if we will be building any Aircraft Carriers anytime soon,buying F35's at £100m a pop or invading Afghanistan.

Which leaves a net subvention of £2.5bn

But that's a lot of money I hear you say to find and it is

But the NI economy is currently operating at 30% pro rata on any metric to that of Republics

Supposing we got it to 60% then it would pay its way as per corporation and income tax returns
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on December 12, 2021, 12:49:03 AM
Too much focus on needy Nordies, what's in it for the South, all pain and no gain?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 12, 2021, 01:46:27 AM
I have no doubt that the sundered Ulster counties would benefit, Donegal in particular.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on December 12, 2021, 11:23:40 AM
The greater Derry City area letterkenny and insishowen would benefit massively from unification
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on December 12, 2021, 12:25:52 PM
Quote from: Main Street on December 12, 2021, 12:49:03 AM
Too much focus on needy Nordies, what's in it for the South, all pain and no gain?
The west Brits get to be re-united with their brothers in arms the unionists. What would you not like about that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: From the Bunker on December 12, 2021, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on December 12, 2021, 11:23:40 AM
The greater Derry City area letterkenny and insishowen would benefit massively from unification

These areas have benefited from a border for years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 12, 2021, 12:44:00 PM
Derry is the place that can benefit most in a UI, it has not developed as Limerick and Galway have done.
Cross border shopping and the like is not development, it is just moving things around.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: J70 on December 12, 2021, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 12, 2021, 01:46:27 AM
I have no doubt that the sundered Ulster counties would benefit, Donegal in particular.

Big time.

GAA joking and so on aside, Derry is the natural centre of the northwest.

We were cut off from that. No doubt part of why Donegal lagged so badly in economic terms for so long.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on December 12, 2021, 02:30:35 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on December 12, 2021, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on December 12, 2021, 11:23:40 AM
The greater Derry City area letterkenny and insishowen would benefit massively from unification

These areas have benefited from a border for years.
Sure they have  ::)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HokeyPokey on December 12, 2021, 08:56:25 PM
Belfast would be a great counterbalance to Dublin.

It's funny that I never hear about American enthusiasm ($$$) there would be for a UI. Since the economy would technically be weaker, we would also receive a lot more EU funding.

The main issue is the discontent among unionists. The economic case is pretty strong.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on December 13, 2021, 10:12:06 AM
Quote from: From the Bunker on December 12, 2021, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on December 12, 2021, 11:23:40 AM
The greater Derry City area letterkenny and insishowen would benefit massively from unification

These areas have benefited from a border for years.

So the border regions benefited from partition? Now there's a f**kin' hot take if ever I heard one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on December 13, 2021, 10:48:51 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on December 13, 2021, 10:12:06 AM
Quote from: From the Bunker on December 12, 2021, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on December 12, 2021, 11:23:40 AM
The greater Derry City area letterkenny and insishowen would benefit massively from unification

These areas have benefited from a border for years.

So the border regions benefited from partition? Now there's a f**kin' hot take if ever I heard one.
Ah in fairness I know plenty of boys that benefitted from a border ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smort on December 14, 2021, 11:03:56 AM
A reasoned contribution here from paddy, although there were a couple of pie-in-the-sky comments

https://twitter.com/merrionstreet/status/1469283720389668869?s=20 (https://twitter.com/merrionstreet/status/1469283720389668869?s=20)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on July 28, 2022, 01:23:27 PM
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/committees/making-a-submission/public-consultations/20220725-public-consultation-on-the-constitutional-future-of-the-island-of-ireland/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 29, 2022, 01:22:15 PM
There were two straws in the wind during the week. The opinion poll in the Irish News showed more in favour on unity than the UK, albeit with a large chunk of don't knows.A second thing was an analysis of the election, which showed 60% of Alliance transfers going to nationalist candidates. So the don't knows might swing toward a UI in a poll if a good case was made.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on July 29, 2022, 01:38:45 PM
The current gov will have made the biggest mistake of their political lives if they do not strive to secure a date for a border poll. I know it's in the hands of the British Secretary of State but there's a few polls now that show unity has the momentum and that will only continue to increase. The gov should be letting London know that now is the time to fix a date. You'll have Unionists casting doubt on the pollsters as Ben Lowry has been doing for years with LucidTalk. But prepping now for a vote in or abouts 2028-30 should be the order of the day.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on July 29, 2022, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: weareros on July 29, 2022, 01:38:45 PM
The current gov will have made the biggest mistake of their political lives if they do not strive to secure a date for a border poll. I know it's in the hands of the British Secretary of State but there's a few polls now that show unity has the momentum and that will only continue to increase. The gov should be letting London know that now is the time to fix a date. You'll have Unionists casting doubt on the pollsters as Ben Lowry has been doing for years with LucidTalk. But prepping now for a vote in or abouts 2028-30 should be the order of the day.

Micheal Martin, the ball-less wonder?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on July 29, 2022, 02:38:12 PM
Engaging with British "Governments" these days would take some ingenuity.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hereiam on July 29, 2022, 03:01:27 PM
Seeing as Britain still has Ireland by the balls in terms of energy supply the southern government will be doing noting to rock the boat.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on July 29, 2022, 04:18:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 29, 2022, 02:38:12 PM
Engaging with British "Governments" these days would take some ingenuity.

Exactly, the irish government should prepare in the background, but talking to these loonies would be challenging. I don't think you can really ask for a border poll until the nationalist vote exceeds the unionist vote in an actual election.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on July 29, 2022, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 29, 2022, 04:18:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 29, 2022, 02:38:12 PM
Engaging with British "Governments" these days would take some ingenuity.

Exactly, the irish government should prepare in the background, but talking to these loonies would be challenging. I don't think you can really ask for a border poll until the nationalist vote exceeds the unionist vote in an actual election.
Scottish independence and the UI project are similar. Below 55%:and easy to manipulate into a níl.
You need 2/3 if you want the deal to fly. Either wait for everyone to lose their pensions or save the pensions. Timing is everything, as it was post 1910.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on August 21, 2022, 07:04:08 PM
The poll in the Sunday Times today has 42% support unity, 48% support UK.
However, for the question do you support unity in 15 years it is 52% yes and 44% no.
Among 18 to 24 Yr olds support for unity has a margin of 57% to 36%.
So just doing simple arithmetic, comparing this to the over 65s, then in 2031 it would be unity 50%, UK 45%.
Time for a site works to start, I think.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on August 22, 2022, 01:18:46 PM
There is a large middle ground to be wooed. Let Arlene, Nigel, et al continue with their alienating that middle  ground. The smartest thing to do may be to do nothing to spook the herd.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on August 22, 2022, 02:27:58 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 21, 2022, 07:04:08 PM
The poll in the Sunday Times today has 42% support unity, 48% support UK.
However, for the question do you support unity in 15 years it is 52% yes and 44% no.
Among 18 to 24 Yr olds support for unity has a margin of 57% to 36%.
So just doing simple arithmetic, comparing this to the over 65s, then in 2031 it would be unity 50%, UK 45%.
Time for a site works to start, I think.

The whole furore over the protocol is largely a manufactured row by Unionism.  Remember Arlene Foster and Jeffrey Donaldson were initially in favour of the protocol before loyalism brought them into line. Its to do with the greater Unionist concern which is the growing threat of a border poll and laying down a statement. The protocol by itself is very little real threat to Unionism but it's this not an inch mentality and their lundification of any pragmatic form of Unionism that will prove their undoing. Loyalism has gradually become the voice of Unionism and many middle ground small u unionists are just turned off by this. However the polls don't lie and demographics are destiny.

Its the same with the DUP pulling down Stormont. That was all about using the protocol (which has no relevance to a functioning Stormont) as cover for pulling down the institutions to avoid sharing power under a nationalist first minister. It's a disgrace that they were allowed to get away with that and that they are still being paid full salaries.     
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on August 30, 2022, 02:20:33 PM
I see they've recruited Jimmy Nesbitt for one of these Ireland's Future Rallys... big coup but will be interesting to see if this goes ahead I imagine he will start to feel some pressure from the Orange side over it!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on August 30, 2022, 02:38:16 PM
Depends what he has to say? Did he not endorse a nationalist In the last Assembly elections?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on August 30, 2022, 03:26:42 PM
Aren't "they" abusing some Unionist Councillor who went to an East Belfast hurling match?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Saffrongael on August 30, 2022, 03:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 30, 2022, 03:26:42 PM
Aren't "they" abusing some Unionist Councillor who went to an East Belfast hurling match?

He's an "activist" not a councillor and in fairness I think he used that as an attempt to raise his profile
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on August 30, 2022, 04:42:31 PM
He's had death threats before that boy. Bryson and the lads don't like the reaching out kind of thing. He's still very critical of the GAA I think but at least he did more than just slating it.

That said I dunno who the hell he is but he keeps appearing on my twitter.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Saffrongael on August 30, 2022, 04:54:29 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on August 30, 2022, 04:42:31 PM
He's had death threats before that boy. Bryson and the lads don't like the reaching out kind of thing. He's still very critical of the GAA I think but at least he did more than just slating it.

That said I dunno who the hell he is but he keeps appearing on my twitter.

He was giving off last year that he never gets asked on anywhere as a commentator or to write opinion pieces in newspapers so I'm guessing he's trying to raise the profile
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on August 30, 2022, 04:55:53 PM
Yeah. If he has a day job I have no idea why he'd want to but then I guess different strokes for different folks etc.

On one hand maybe it's admirable and basically the non nutjob side of unionism needs a voice as opposed to amplifying the nutjobs views.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: screenexile on August 31, 2022, 11:46:40 AM
Fair play Jimbo . . .

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/james-nesbitt-wants-new-union-of-ireland-as-he-reveals-project-to-give-voice-to-silent-majority-38287899.html

Talks about a lot of what we've been on about above. "Former" Unionists embracing the inevitable and trying to make a new inclusive society work for everyone!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on August 31, 2022, 12:28:45 PM
Quote from: screenexile on August 31, 2022, 11:46:40 AM
Fair play Jimbo . . .

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/james-nesbitt-wants-new-union-of-ireland-as-he-reveals-project-to-give-voice-to-silent-majority-38287899.html

Talks about a lot of what we've been on about above. "Former" Unionists embracing the inevitable and trying to make a new inclusive society work for everyone!

Only a matter of time before he is 'lundified' and he will probably have the distinction of appearing on some bonfires next year.

It's no coincidence that educated young protestants are often the more progressive in society. Think of the Rory Best, James Nesbitt, Stephen Ferris, Andrew Trimble types. People who have seen a bit of the world instead of being stuck in an insular bubble and howling at the moon from within the 6 counties. Meanwhile those who come from more disadvantaged areas are fed a diet of hatred and sectarianism facilitated by their elected representatives most of whom are simply feathering their own nests and seeking to maintain a level of power and control.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: An Watcher on August 31, 2022, 09:48:54 PM
Yes, it'll be interesting to see how this is received.  Not sure if others will be so brave
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: michaelg on August 31, 2022, 10:07:41 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on August 31, 2022, 12:28:45 PM
Quote from: screenexile on August 31, 2022, 11:46:40 AM
Fair play Jimbo . . .

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/james-nesbitt-wants-new-union-of-ireland-as-he-reveals-project-to-give-voice-to-silent-majority-38287899.html

Talks about a lot of what we've been on about above. "Former" Unionists embracing the inevitable and trying to make a new inclusive society work for everyone!

Only a matter of time before he is 'lundified' and he will probably have the distinction of appearing on some bonfires next year.

It's no coincidence that educated young protestants are often the more progressive in society. Think of the Rory Best, James Nesbitt, Stephen Ferris, Andrew Trimble types. People who have seen a bit of the world instead of being stuck in an insular bubble and howling at the moon from within the 6 counties. Meanwhile those who come from more disadvantaged areas are fed a diet of hatred and sectarianism facilitated by their elected representatives most of whom are simply feathering their own nests and seeking to maintain a level of power and control.   
Not starrting any 'lundification' of Jimmy Nesbitt, but I struggle to see why anyone would pay a blind bit of notice about what he says.  He also seems to stop short of saying where he stands on a border poll, so seems a bit of a non story to me.

Also, somewhat of a sweeping generalisation where you seem to demonise all working class protestant people.  People like Carl Frampton would not fit the stereotype you are pushing above.  Be curious to know if you actually know or work with many Protestant people from disdavantaged areas.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on August 31, 2022, 10:39:16 PM
Quote from: michaelg on August 31, 2022, 10:07:41 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on August 31, 2022, 12:28:45 PM
Quote from: screenexile on August 31, 2022, 11:46:40 AM
Fair play Jimbo . . .

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/james-nesbitt-wants-new-union-of-ireland-as-he-reveals-project-to-give-voice-to-silent-majority-38287899.html

Talks about a lot of what we've been on about above. "Former" Unionists embracing the inevitable and trying to make a new inclusive society work for everyone!

Only a matter of time before he is 'lundified' and he will probably have the distinction of appearing on some bonfires next year.

It's no coincidence that educated young protestants are often the more progressive in society. Think of the Rory Best, James Nesbitt, Stephen Ferris, Andrew Trimble types. People who have seen a bit of the world instead of being stuck in an insular bubble and howling at the moon from within the 6 counties. Meanwhile those who come from more disadvantaged areas are fed a diet of hatred and sectarianism facilitated by their elected representatives most of whom are simply feathering their own nests and seeking to maintain a level of power and control.   
Not starrting any 'lundification' of Jimmy Nesbitt, but I struggle to see why anyone would pay a blind bit of notice about what he says.  He also seems to stop short of saying where he stands on a border poll, so seems a bit of a non story to me.

Also, somewhat of a sweeping generalisation where you seem to demonise all working class protestant people.  People like Carl Frampton would not fit the stereotype you are pushing above.  Be curious to know if you actually know or work with many Protestant people from disdavantaged areas.

Which Protestants from the six counties do you think we should pay a blind bit of notice to?

Who decides?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on August 31, 2022, 10:44:42 PM
We can add Eddie Irvine and Jamie Dornan to the list of enlightened celebrity themmuns
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on August 31, 2022, 11:02:35 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on August 31, 2022, 10:44:42 PM
We can add Eddie Irvine and Jamie Dornan to the list of enlightened celebrity themmuns

But but but

EG says they don't exist

and

Michaelg says we aren't to listen to them

I suppose that proves that at least one of them is wrong  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: ardtole on September 01, 2022, 06:21:24 AM
Just listen yo big Jim McDonald from Coronation Street. He has his finger on the pulse.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on September 01, 2022, 10:40:44 AM
Quote from: michaelg on August 31, 2022, 10:07:41 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on August 31, 2022, 12:28:45 PM
Quote from: screenexile on August 31, 2022, 11:46:40 AM
Fair play Jimbo . . .

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/james-nesbitt-wants-new-union-of-ireland-as-he-reveals-project-to-give-voice-to-silent-majority-38287899.html

Talks about a lot of what we've been on about above. "Former" Unionists embracing the inevitable and trying to make a new inclusive society work for everyone!

Only a matter of time before he is 'lundified' and he will probably have the distinction of appearing on some bonfires next year.

It's no coincidence that educated young protestants are often the more progressive in society. Think of the Rory Best, James Nesbitt, Stephen Ferris, Andrew Trimble types. People who have seen a bit of the world instead of being stuck in an insular bubble and howling at the moon from within the 6 counties. Meanwhile those who come from more disadvantaged areas are fed a diet of hatred and sectarianism facilitated by their elected representatives most of whom are simply feathering their own nests and seeking to maintain a level of power and control.   
Not starrting any 'lundification' of Jimmy Nesbitt, but I struggle to see why anyone would pay a blind bit of notice about what he says.  He also seems to stop short of saying where he stands on a border poll, so seems a bit of a non story to me.

Also, somewhat of a sweeping generalisation where you seem to demonise all working class protestant people.  People like Carl Frampton would not fit the stereotype you are pushing above.  Be curious to know if you actually know or work with many Protestant people from disdavantaged areas.

Except that you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I AM demonising the political representatives for those areas who have done nothing to improve the lives of working class protestants. I'm NOT demonising those people themselves many of whom are trapped in estates run by loyalists and can't see a way out of relative poverty. I doubt if I would be welcome in those areas, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable in them and thats not the fault of the people living within them. When you are told often enough that 'themmuns' are the enemies you start to believe it. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 06, 2022, 11:53:53 AM
Will the new English PM speed up the process leading to the All Ireland State?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 06, 2022, 11:57:14 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 06, 2022, 11:53:53 AM
Will the new English PM speed up the process leading to the All Ireland State?

Well considering she put her foot in it with the French leadership I give it a few days before she falls out with the Irish leadership and the DUP of course
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on September 10, 2022, 02:17:04 PM
Below is worth a listen .. someone who seems to know what he's talking about ...

https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/are-we-prepared-for-a-yes-result-in-a-united-ireland-poll (https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/are-we-prepared-for-a-yes-result-in-a-united-ireland-poll)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on September 10, 2022, 08:10:07 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on September 10, 2022, 02:17:04 PM
Below is worth a listen .. someone who seems to know what he's talking about ...

https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/are-we-prepared-for-a-yes-result-in-a-united-ireland-poll (https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/are-we-prepared-for-a-yes-result-in-a-united-ireland-poll)

So well spoken and the type of smart, intelligent articulation that should be heard more. Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 93-DY-SAM on September 12, 2022, 11:53:30 AM
Quote from: weareros on September 10, 2022, 08:10:07 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on September 10, 2022, 02:17:04 PM
Below is worth a listen .. someone who seems to know what he's talking about ...

https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/are-we-prepared-for-a-yes-result-in-a-united-ireland-poll (https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/are-we-prepared-for-a-yes-result-in-a-united-ireland-poll)

So well spoken and the type of smart, intelligent articulation that should be heard more. Thanks for sharing.

Just listened to this. This is precisely the type of grown-up discussion that should be ongoing and that should be happening on a much wider basis.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:13:22 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMJust to throw in my penny's worth as a SF voter...
And here's mine as a Unonist (though not a DUPer).

Anyhow, I was chatting earlier this evening to another Unionist (but no hardliner) and we both agreed, what must eg the mother of a dead hunger striker, or a volunteer who was shot on an operation etc, think upon seeing the recent activities oif SF?

I mean, just what the fcuk was the "armed struggle" for? So  Michelle O'Neill could fly over to Westminster to be seen shaking hands with the Royal Family etc, surrounded by British servicemen and women in unifoirm?

Before flying back and berating the DUP for not joining in helping them both administer British Rule in Ireland?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMIt will never be comfortable watching SF politicians shaking hands with British monarchs while we remain partitioned, but that being said, it's abundantly clear why they did it.
"Never comfortable" is it?

I'm surprised any self-respecting Republican - the clue's in the name btw - could keep from throwing up at the very sight, but no matter.

And as for "why they did it", that's bloody obvious - they're just playing politics. Which in itself might be fine - after all they're politicians these days - but to what political end?

To put one over the DUP/TUV etc, while stealing the SDLP's clothes etc and to maximise the Nationalist vote at the next election, yeah, I can see all that. But to borrow a soccer analogy, that's all just fannying about outside the penalty area, playing neat tiki-taka to entertain the fans in the stand, without ever getting a shot on target, never mind scoring a goal, the "target" being a United Ireland.

Or so I thought.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMThey have been getting lauded from (almost) all directions for how they've handled the last few days - most notably from middle grounders who are the very people that need to be brought on board for what is now an inevitable border poll and like all SF does - it's geared towards a successful border poll.
Christ! Do you really believe that?

Were I a Shinner, positively the last thing I'd want would be a border poll. I mean, why suffer the humiliation of losing?

For if anything, this week's activities have made a UI vote further away, not closer, on two counts.

1. "Normalising" politics in NI does nothing for Republicanism, since the closer NI gets to normality, the less pressing the need of Nationalists for a UI.

2. And even if they can maximise their share of the Nationalist/Republican vote, as I've said on here before,  a referendum is a very different proposition from an election (see eg Scotland, Brexit). And for SF to get over the 42-43% level at which Nationalism has plateaued in every election this century, they need to start persuading a significant section of the Unionist community to cease to be Unionists, reject their life-long identity and vote for something they've opposed for the last, well, forever.

And on that score, the DUP/TUV hardliners are (predictably enough) spitting feathers, while the moderates remain unmoved, seeing it all for what it actually is i.e. shameless, cynical politicking. But either way, it doesn't make any of them less of a Unionist.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PM
As I say, I take no pleasure seeing them greet monarchs, but the reality is that it's nothing new nowadays. No existing SF voters are going to get too annoyed today at Michelle O'Neill for shaking a royal's hand. Why would they? She didn't break any new ground. SF politicians, Michelle included, have been meeting british royals for the last ten years ever since Martin McGuinness took the step first back and shook Lizzie's hand in 2012.

Seems to me that SF have had everything to gain and nothing really to lose this last week and that's how they've played it.
Nothing to lose bar their dignity and nothing to gain, full stop.

Seems to me that it wasn't just the Queen who died last week, but another little bit of Irish Republicanism.

But while we  Unionists can proclaim: "The Queen is dead, Long Live the King", what has SF got to offer next?

Taking their seats in Westminster?

Hell, why not - they've sold out on just about everything else!




Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: BennyHarp on September 20, 2022, 01:11:56 AM
It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 06:34:16 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:13:22 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMJust to throw in my penny's worth as a SF voter...
And here's mine as a Unonist (though not a DUPer).

Anyhow, I was chatting earlier this evening to another Unionist (but no hardliner) and we both agreed, what must eg the mother of a dead hunger striker, or a volunteer who was shot on an operation etc, think upon seeing the recent activities oif SF?

I mean, just what the fcuk was the "armed struggle" for? So  Michelle O'Neill could fly over to Westminster to be seen shaking hands with the Royal Family etc, surrounded by British servicemen and women in unifoirm?

Before flying back and berating the DUP for not joining in helping them both administer British Rule in Ireland?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMIt will never be comfortable watching SF politicians shaking hands with British monarchs while we remain partitioned, but that being said, it's abundantly clear why they did it.
"Never comfortable" is it?

I'm surprised any self-respecting Republican - the clue's in the name btw - could keep from throwing up at the very sight, but no matter.

And as for "why they did it", that's bloody obvious - they're just playing politics. Which in itself might be fine - after all they're politicians these days - but to what political end?

To put one over the DUP/TUV etc, while stealing the SDLP's clothes etc and to maximise the Nationalist vote at the next election, yeah, I can see all that. But to borrow a soccer analogy, that's all just fannying about outside the penalty area, playing neat tiki-taka to entertain the fans in the stand, without ever getting a shot on target, never mind scoring a goal, the "target" being a United Ireland.

Or so I thought.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMThey have been getting lauded from (almost) all directions for how they've handled the last few days - most notably from middle grounders who are the very people that need to be brought on board for what is now an inevitable border poll and like all SF does - it's geared towards a successful border poll.
Christ! Do you really believe that?

Were I a Shinner, positively the last thing I'd want would be a border poll. I mean, why suffer the humiliation of losing?

For if anything, this week's activities have made a UI vote further away, not closer, on two counts.

1. "Normalising" politics in NI does nothing for Republicanism, since the closer NI gets to normality, the less pressing the need of Nationalists for a UI.

2. And even if they can maximise their share of the Nationalist/Republican vote, as I've said on here before,  a referendum is a very different proposition from an election (see eg Scotland, Brexit). And for SF to get over the 42-43% level at which Nationalism has plateaued in every election this century, they need to start persuading a significant section of the Unionist community to cease to be Unionists, reject their life-long identity and vote for something they've opposed for the last, well, forever.

And on that score, the DUP/TUV hardliners are (predictably enough) spitting feathers, while the moderates remain unmoved, seeing it all for what it actually is i.e. shameless, cynical politicking. But either way, it doesn't make any of them less of a Unionist.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PM
As I say, I take no pleasure seeing them greet monarchs, but the reality is that it's nothing new nowadays. No existing SF voters are going to get too annoyed today at Michelle O'Neill for shaking a royal's hand. Why would they? She didn't break any new ground. SF politicians, Michelle included, have been meeting british royals for the last ten years ever since Martin McGuinness took the step first back and shook Lizzie's hand in 2012.

Seems to me that SF have had everything to gain and nothing really to lose this last week and that's how they've played it.
Nothing to lose bar their dignity and nothing to gain, full stop.

Seems to me that it wasn't just the Queen who died last week, but another little bit of Irish Republicanism.

But while we  Unionists can proclaim: "The Queen is dead, Long Live the King", what has SF got to offer next?

Taking their seats in Westminster?

Hell, why not - they've sold out on just about everything else!

Friendly reminder that SF is an Irish republican party. Not a British republican party. It's no more of their business how the British run their country than it is any of the Brits' business how Ireland should be governed, north or south. SF's actions over the last week have been entirely consistent with their Irish republican principles.

As for a border poll, yeah there's not much chance of our ones winning one as soon as we "win" the census, but AFAIK once you hold one border poll then you start the clock on when the next one is held, and they keep on getting held until the appropriate outcome comes out. This is not like Scotland where a constitutional referendum only gets held whenever a British government feels like it, or is forced into it by parliamentary arithmetic. The slope to a UI is a lot slippier than the slope to an independent Scotland.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: BrotherMore6592 on September 20, 2022, 07:19:03 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:13:22 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMJust to throw in my penny's worth as a SF voter...
And here's mine as a Unonist (though not a DUPer).

Anyhow, I was chatting earlier this evening to another Unionist (but no hardliner) and we both agreed, what must eg the mother of a dead hunger striker, or a volunteer who was shot on an operation etc, think upon seeing the recent activities oif SF?

I mean, just what the fcuk was the "armed struggle" for? So  Michelle O'Neill could fly over to Westminster to be seen shaking hands with the Royal Family etc, surrounded by British servicemen and women in unifoirm?

Before flying back and berating the DUP for not joining in helping them both administer British Rule in Ireland?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMIt will never be comfortable watching SF politicians shaking hands with British monarchs while we remain partitioned, but that being said, it's abundantly clear why they did it.
"Never comfortable" is it?

I'm surprised any self-respecting Republican - the clue's in the name btw - could keep from throwing up at the very sight, but no matter.

And as for "why they did it", that's bloody obvious - they're just playing politics. Which in itself might be fine - after all they're politicians these days - but to what political end?

To put one over the DUP/TUV etc, while stealing the SDLP's clothes etc and to maximise the Nationalist vote at the next election, yeah, I can see all that. But to borrow a soccer analogy, that's all just fannying about outside the penalty area, playing neat tiki-taka to entertain the fans in the stand, without ever getting a shot on target, never mind scoring a goal, the "target" being a United Ireland.

Or so I thought.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMThey have been getting lauded from (almost) all directions for how they've handled the last few days - most notably from middle grounders who are the very people that need to be brought on board for what is now an inevitable border poll and like all SF does - it's geared towards a successful border poll.
Christ! Do you really believe that?

Were I a Shinner, positively the last thing I'd want would be a border poll. I mean, why suffer the humiliation of losing?

For if anything, this week's activities have made a UI vote further away, not closer, on two counts.

1. "Normalising" politics in NI does nothing for Republicanism, since the closer NI gets to normality, the less pressing the need of Nationalists for a UI.

2. And even if they can maximise their share of the Nationalist/Republican vote, as I've said on here before,  a referendum is a very different proposition from an election (see eg Scotland, Brexit). And for SF to get over the 42-43% level at which Nationalism has plateaued in every election this century, they need to start persuading a significant section of the Unionist community to cease to be Unionists, reject their life-long identity and vote for something they've opposed for the last, well, forever.

And on that score, the DUP/TUV hardliners are (predictably enough) spitting feathers, while the moderates remain unmoved, seeing it all for what it actually is i.e. shameless, cynical politicking. But either way, it doesn't make any of them less of a Unionist.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PM
As I say, I take no pleasure seeing them greet monarchs, but the reality is that it's nothing new nowadays. No existing SF voters are going to get too annoyed today at Michelle O'Neill for shaking a royal's hand. Why would they? She didn't break any new ground. SF politicians, Michelle included, have been meeting british royals for the last ten years ever since Martin McGuinness took the step first back and shook Lizzie's hand in 2012.

Seems to me that SF have had everything to gain and nothing really to lose this last week and that's how they've played it.
Nothing to lose bar their dignity and nothing to gain, full stop.

Seems to me that it wasn't just the Queen who died last week, but another little bit of Irish Republicanism.

But while we  Unionists can proclaim: "The Queen is dead, Long Live the King", what has SF got to offer next?

Taking their seats in Westminster?

Hell, why not - they've sold out on just about everything else!


WUM, yawn, move on
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 20, 2022, 07:24:32 AM
Good post Evil genius. Good to hear your opinion, I agree with you on on how  this week's events will pan out . I think SF have normalised the " northern Irish identity" as something young people are happy with. If Brexit settles and the UK economy improves we have no chance of winning any referendum. People are much happier in the current NI than any time in it it's existence.

Brexit needs to have a stinking second half for us to win the game
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Hound on September 20, 2022, 07:26:56 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 20, 2022, 01:11:56 AM
It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️
A sure sign that Sinn Fein are finally on the right track.

SF doing the decent thing is shocking and scary. You'll never change the hardliners on both sides from being upset at them doing that, but everyone else thinks they've played a blinder. Keep this up and the moderate unionists won't be so frightened of what a UI might look like.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Hound on September 20, 2022, 07:29:56 AM
I saw the Irish harp on the Queen's coffin and wondered what that was all about. Got this from wiki:

the flag is divided into four quadrants. The first and fourth quadrants represent the ancient Kingdom of England and contain three gold lions (or "leopards"), passant guardant on a red field; the second quadrant represents the ancient Kingdom of Scotland and contains a red lion rampant on a gold field; the third quadrant represents the ancient Kingdom of Ireland and contains a version of the gold harp from the coat of arms of Ireland on a blue field. The inclusion of the harp remains an issue for some in Ireland. In 1937 Éamon de Valera, then Taoiseach, asked Dominions Secretary Malcolm MacDonald if the harp quarter could be removed from the Royal Standard on the grounds that the Irish people had not given their consent to the Irish emblem being included. The request was denied and the harp remains 

That's a bit sickening to be honest.
But on the other hand, when a UI comes into being, it should mean the harp is a emblem everyone can get behind.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: johnnycool on September 20, 2022, 07:50:42 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:13:22 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMJust to throw in my penny's worth as a SF voter...
And here's mine as a Unonist (though not a DUPer).

Anyhow, I was chatting earlier this evening to another Unionist (but no hardliner) and we both agreed, what must eg the mother of a dead hunger striker, or a volunteer who was shot on an operation etc, think upon seeing the recent activities oif SF?

I mean, just what the fcuk was the "armed struggle" for? So  Michelle O'Neill could fly over to Westminster to be seen shaking hands with the Royal Family etc, surrounded by British servicemen and women in unifoirm?

Before flying back and berating the DUP for not joining in helping them both administer British Rule in Ireland?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMIt will never be comfortable watching SF politicians shaking hands with British monarchs while we remain partitioned, but that being said, it's abundantly clear why they did it.
"Never comfortable" is it?

I'm surprised any self-respecting Republican - the clue's in the name btw - could keep from throwing up at the very sight, but no matter.

And as for "why they did it", that's bloody obvious - they're just playing politics. Which in itself might be fine - after all they're politicians these days - but to what political end?

To put one over the DUP/TUV etc, while stealing the SDLP's clothes etc and to maximise the Nationalist vote at the next election, yeah, I can see all that. But to borrow a soccer analogy, that's all just fannying about outside the penalty area, playing neat tiki-taka to entertain the fans in the stand, without ever getting a shot on target, never mind scoring a goal, the "target" being a United Ireland.

Or so I thought.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMThey have been getting lauded from (almost) all directions for how they've handled the last few days - most notably from middle grounders who are the very people that need to be brought on board for what is now an inevitable border poll and like all SF does - it's geared towards a successful border poll.
Christ! Do you really believe that?

Were I a Shinner, positively the last thing I'd want would be a border poll. I mean, why suffer the humiliation of losing?

For if anything, this week's activities have made a UI vote further away, not closer, on two counts.

1. "Normalising" politics in NI does nothing for Republicanism, since the closer NI gets to normality, the less pressing the need of Nationalists for a UI.

2. And even if they can maximise their share of the Nationalist/Republican vote, as I've said on here before,  a referendum is a very different proposition from an election (see eg Scotland, Brexit). And for SF to get over the 42-43% level at which Nationalism has plateaued in every election this century, they need to start persuading a significant section of the Unionist community to cease to be Unionists, reject their life-long identity and vote for something they've opposed for the last, well, forever.

And on that score, the DUP/TUV hardliners are (predictably enough) spitting feathers, while the moderates remain unmoved, seeing it all for what it actually is i.e. shameless, cynical politicking. But either way, it doesn't make any of them less of a Unionist.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PM
As I say, I take no pleasure seeing them greet monarchs, but the reality is that it's nothing new nowadays. No existing SF voters are going to get too annoyed today at Michelle O'Neill for shaking a royal's hand. Why would they? She didn't break any new ground. SF politicians, Michelle included, have been meeting british royals for the last ten years ever since Martin McGuinness took the step first back and shook Lizzie's hand in 2012.

Seems to me that SF have had everything to gain and nothing really to lose this last week and that's how they've played it.
Nothing to lose bar their dignity and nothing to gain, full stop.

Seems to me that it wasn't just the Queen who died last week, but another little bit of Irish Republicanism.

But while we  Unionists can proclaim: "The Queen is dead, Long Live the King", what has SF got to offer next?

Taking their seats in Westminster?

Hell, why not - they've sold out on just about everything else!

Unionism is really struggling to process the normalisation of SF by everyone other than them and the straw clutching will go on.

In the meantime the battle for the middle ground in NI goes on as it is they who will decide the constitutional question when it comes and it's coming.

Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: imtommygunn on September 20, 2022, 08:48:50 AM
It is high time the DUP's links with loyalist paramilitaries have the light shown on them too. The likes of that LCC etc need to be seriously examined and why any political party wold have any links to them. People are voting for the DUP because of SF and their paramilitary links by voting for another party with paramilitary links. This really does need exposed.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: yellowcard on September 20, 2022, 10:09:25 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 20, 2022, 01:11:56 AM
It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️

It does make a pleasant change from the lundification of any of their own people who consider giving even an inch though. Lundifying the perceived opposition now is a new tactic!   
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Rossfan on September 20, 2022, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Hound on September 20, 2022, 07:29:56 AM
I saw the Irish harp on the Queen's coffin and wondered what that was all about. Got this from wiki:

the flag is divided into four quadrants. The first and fourth quadrants represent the ancient Kingdom of England and contain three gold lions (or "leopards"), passant guardant on a red field; the second quadrant represents the ancient Kingdom of Scotland and contains a red lion rampant on a gold field; the third quadrant represents the ancient Kingdom of Ireland and contains a version of the gold harp from the coat of arms of Ireland on a blue field. The inclusion of the harp remains an issue for some in Ireland. In 1937 Éamon de Valera, then Taoiseach, asked Dominions Secretary Malcolm MacDonald if the harp quarter could be removed from the Royal Standard on the grounds that the Irish people had not given their consent to the Irish emblem being included. The request was denied and the harp remains 


Wales obviously not recognised ;D
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: seafoid on September 20, 2022, 10:54:05 AM
The descent into the crypt was straight out of James Bond

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSn9FJ5ZU8o
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:13:22 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMJust to throw in my penny's worth as a SF voter...
And here's mine as a Unonist (though not a DUPer).

Anyhow, I was chatting earlier this evening to another Unionist (but no hardliner) and we both agreed, what must eg the mother of a dead hunger striker, or a volunteer who was shot on an operation etc, think upon seeing the recent activities oif SF?

I mean, just what the fcuk was the "armed struggle" for? So  Michelle O'Neill could fly over to Westminster to be seen shaking hands with the Royal Family etc, surrounded by British servicemen and women in unifoirm?

Before flying back and berating the DUP for not joining in helping them both administer British Rule in Ireland?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMIt will never be comfortable watching SF politicians shaking hands with British monarchs while we remain partitioned, but that being said, it's abundantly clear why they did it.
"Never comfortable" is it?

I'm surprised any self-respecting Republican - the clue's in the name btw - could keep from throwing up at the very sight, but no matter.

And as for "why they did it", that's bloody obvious - they're just playing politics. Which in itself might be fine - after all they're politicians these days - but to what political end?

To put one over the DUP/TUV etc, while stealing the SDLP's clothes etc and to maximise the Nationalist vote at the next election, yeah, I can see all that. But to borrow a soccer analogy, that's all just fannying about outside the penalty area, playing neat tiki-taka to entertain the fans in the stand, without ever getting a shot on target, never mind scoring a goal, the "target" being a United Ireland.

Or so I thought.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMThey have been getting lauded from (almost) all directions for how they've handled the last few days - most notably from middle grounders who are the very people that need to be brought on board for what is now an inevitable border poll and like all SF does - it's geared towards a successful border poll.
Christ! Do you really believe that?

Were I a Shinner, positively the last thing I'd want would be a border poll. I mean, why suffer the humiliation of losing?

For if anything, this week's activities have made a UI vote further away, not closer, on two counts.

1. "Normalising" politics in NI does nothing for Republicanism, since the closer NI gets to normality, the less pressing the need of Nationalists for a UI.

2. And even if they can maximise their share of the Nationalist/Republican vote, as I've said on here before,  a referendum is a very different proposition from an election (see eg Scotland, Brexit). And for SF to get over the 42-43% level at which Nationalism has plateaued in every election this century, they need to start persuading a significant section of the Unionist community to cease to be Unionists, reject their life-long identity and vote for something they've opposed for the last, well, forever.

And on that score, the DUP/TUV hardliners are (predictably enough) spitting feathers, while the moderates remain unmoved, seeing it all for what it actually is i.e. shameless, cynical politicking. But either way, it doesn't make any of them less of a Unionist.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PM
As I say, I take no pleasure seeing them greet monarchs, but the reality is that it's nothing new nowadays. No existing SF voters are going to get too annoyed today at Michelle O'Neill for shaking a royal's hand. Why would they? She didn't break any new ground. SF politicians, Michelle included, have been meeting british royals for the last ten years ever since Martin McGuinness took the step first back and shook Lizzie's hand in 2012.

Seems to me that SF have had everything to gain and nothing really to lose this last week and that's how they've played it.
Nothing to lose bar their dignity and nothing to gain, full stop.

Seems to me that it wasn't just the Queen who died last week, but another little bit of Irish Republicanism.

But while we  Unionists can proclaim: "The Queen is dead, Long Live the King", what has SF got to offer next?

Taking their seats in Westminster?

Hell, why not - they've sold out on just about everything else!

That entire post reminds me of James Molyneaux proclaiming that "a prolonged IRA ceasefire could be the most destabilising thing to happen to unionism since partition". Your post absolutely screams of your discomfort at the positive reaction SF have been getting from the 'middle of the roaders' over the last week. SF won't have lost any support from it's base over the course of the last few days - they've been greeting royal visitors here for a decade after all (and I remember the jibes from opponents predicting that it meant SF were about to take their seats in Westminster back then too ::)). So while they won't have lot support, they will however have gained a degree of support from the middle of the road. The same people you no doubt know are key to a border poll.

And then to cap the post off with the claim that Irish Republicanism is dying, at a time when SF's is now the largest party north and south, and still growing?? You're some ostrich.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 20, 2022, 01:11:56 AM
It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️
Im not "beratinng" anyone bar, perhaps, those amongst my fellow Unionists who are too thick to see what's really happening.

Re SF, it is entirely up to them how they play things, but whatever the nuances etc, they are still up against the paradox that the more they bang the drum and wave the flag to get the Nationalist vote out, the more that unites Unionism in their determination to resist.

While being more conciliatory has no effect either way on Unionists, since whether youre a Foster or a Beattie, at the end of the day you're still a Unionist.

And unless/until a significant section of Unionists can be persuaded to become Nationalists, by which I mean at least 10%, though more realistically 20%, then there is no way SF can win a referendum.

Which explains why SF are not banging on the door of the Secretary of State every day to demand one - they at least are cute enough to know how things work, I'll give them that.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Franko on September 20, 2022, 11:42:53 AM
EG's theory in a nutshell:

A person can only ever become more resolved towards Unionism, never less.  Once a unionist, always a unionist, regardless of circumstance.

Nationalists, however, are capable of become non-nationalists (or at the very least agnostic about the subject) at the drop of a crown hat.

Which is utter nonsense.

Unsurprising though, as the political leaders of Unionism display a similar head in the sand attitude to the changes occurring in front of their eyes.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Dougal Maguire on September 20, 2022, 11:47:00 AM
Some haywire stuff there from EG.  SF has been in the ascendancy for years now but it doesn't appear to be doing much to unite unionism to resist when it comes to the ballot box. You also conveniently ignore that a significant percentage of unionists appear to be on a journey towards nationalism via Alliance. If Unionism had at sense it would start to negotiate terms for a UI now while they still have some sort of a hand to play with
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: weareros on September 20, 2022, 11:52:05 AM
I don't get the no way a border poll can be won. Solid Unionist vote is now at 41% with heavier numbers in the 60+ age group. In 10 years, the Unionist vote will have dropped below 40%. You can equally ask where are Unionists going to get the 12-15% to maintain the Union. It will be harder because recent polls show that the Alliance vote is skewing way more nationalist in second preferences, and recent Lucid poll showed it was more heavily weighted towards a UI. In addition, Unionists have taken positions that are not popular with the middle ground and younger voters - pro-Brexit, anti-EU, anti marriage equality, anti abortion rights, skeptical on climate. This pleases their older base but will not attract the younger demographics. It will prove much harder for Unionists to make up the gap in the inevitable border poll, particularly if Dublin plays cards right and makes it an attractive proposition. Their best bet has always been Dublin not giving a damn but Brexit has forced Dublin's hand. Irish gov cannot afford to have things like common agricultural policy disrupted by Brexit as it threatens Ireland's place in Single Market. Dublin as in parties like FG now need a United Ireland. It's why they got EU to pre-approve all the paperwork once Brexit passed.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: trueblue1234 on September 20, 2022, 11:57:29 AM
Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 11:42:53 AM
EG's theory in a nutshell:

A person can only ever become more resolved towards Unionism, never less.  Once a unionist, always a unionist, regardless of circumstance.

Nationalists, however, are capable of become non-nationalists (or at the very least agnostic about the subject) at the drop of a crown hat.

Which is utter nonsense.

Unsurprising though, as the political leaders of Unionism display a similar head in the sand attitude to the changes occurring in front of their eyes.

In a nut shell. Which is surprising given there have been a few well know "celebrities" who have come out in the recent few months to say the opposite. Maybe these were just outliers. But maybe not.
I can understand why unionists, who for so long had a stranglehold on NI, and who have dictated for too long are now feeling edgy. They are focusing on the about turn of SF. But are happy to ignore the change in direction by their beloved British state. One who ordered the shoot to kill policies, interment etc, who are now cosying up with SF. Getting upstaged by SF at a Royal occasion too. It must really suck to be a unionist at the minute. Fighting tooth and nail, but knowing that things can only really get worse as we move towards a more equal society. Knowing that their position won't strengthen but only weaken especially in global politics.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: imtommygunn on September 20, 2022, 11:58:41 AM
Quote from: weareros on September 20, 2022, 11:52:05 AM
I don't get the no way a border poll can be won. Solid Unionist vote is now at 41% with heavier numbers in the 60+ age group. In 10 years, the Unionist vote will have dropped below 40%. You can equally ask where are Unionists going to get the 12-15% to maintain the Union. It will be harder because recent polls show that the Alliance vote is skewing way more nationalist in second preferences, and recent Lucid poll showed it was more heavily weighted towards a UI. In addition, Unionists have taken positions that are not popular with the middle ground and younger voters - pro-Brexit, anti-EU, anti marriage equality, anti abortion rights, skeptical on climate. This pleases their older base but will not attract the younger demographics. It will prove much harder for Unionists to make up the gap in the inevitable border poll, particularly if Dublin plays cards right and makes it an attractive proposition. Their best bet has always been Dublin not giving a damn but Brexit has forced Dublin's hand. Irish gov cannot afford to have things like common agricultural policy disrupted by Brexit as it threatens Ireland's place in Single Market. Dublin as in parties like FG now need a United Ireland. It's why they got EU to pre-approve all the paperwork once Brexit passed.

Brexit is a huge huge game changer in the whole thing for a whole host of reasons.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 06:34:16 AM
Friendly reminder that SF is an Irish republican party. Not a British republican party. It's no more of their business how the British run their country than it is any of the Brits' business how Ireland should be governed, north or south.
Er, it is entirely the business of "the Brits", which includes people like me btw, how one part of Ireland is governed.

Which, I should add, is not an excuse to do so in a manner which ignores the position of Nationalists in NI; however we have the GFA to guide us as to how the two traditions should be accommodated.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 06:34:16 AMSF's actions over the last week have been entirely consistent with their Irish republican principles.
Which principles are those then?

The one which saw Michelle O'Neill shake the hand of the King?

Or the ones which saw their IRA comrades murder the King's 79 y.o. uncle, along with his 14 y.o. grandson, and a 15 y.o. Irish boy whom he had befriended on holiday?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 06:34:16 AMAs for a border poll, yeah there's not much chance of our ones winning one as soon as we "win" the census, but AFAIK once you hold one border poll then you start the clock on when the next one is held, ]and they keep on getting held until the appropriate outcome comes out. This is not like Scotland where a constitutional referendum only gets held whenever a British government feels like it, or is forced into it by parliamentary arithmetic.
That is not my understanding, which iirc is that once a referendum is held, then there shall not be another one in less than 7 years. Which is not the same as saying there must be another one after seven years.

As for Scotland, you're quite right that their situation is different, but not in the way you claim. For with NI, it is entirely within the gift of the SofS for NI to call a referendum, but only if he feels that there may be a majority for a UI.

And realistically speaking, there is no more prospect of such a majority than there has been at any time since the GFA (at least). Which explains why SF aren't calling for one, even at a time when their (party) political stock in Ireland, both parts, has never been higher.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 06:34:16 AMThe slope to a UI is a lot slippier than the slope to an independent Scotland.
Thats what Republicans have been saying for the last 100 years!

But what you don't seem to realise is that every slope goes up as well as down, and Republicans havie to climb this one, not ski down it!  ;D
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:05:12 PM
Quote from: BrotherMore6592 on September 20, 2022, 07:19:03 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:13:22 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMJust to throw in my penny's worth as a SF voter...
And here's mine as a Unonist (though not a DUPer).

Anyhow, I was chatting earlier this evening to another Unionist (but no hardliner) and we both agreed, what must eg the mother of a dead hunger striker, or a volunteer who was shot on an operation etc, think upon seeing the recent activities oif SF?

I mean, just what the fcuk was the "armed struggle" for? So  Michelle O'Neill could fly over to Westminster to be seen shaking hands with the Royal Family etc, surrounded by British servicemen and women in unifoirm?

Before flying back and berating the DUP for not joining in helping them both administer British Rule in Ireland?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMIt will never be comfortable watching SF politicians shaking hands with British monarchs while we remain partitioned, but that being said, it's abundantly clear why they did it.
"Never comfortable" is it?

I'm surprised any self-respecting Republican - the clue's in the name btw - could keep from throwing up at the very sight, but no matter.

And as for "why they did it", that's bloody obvious - they're just playing politics. Which in itself might be fine - after all they're politicians these days - but to what political end?

To put one over the DUP/TUV etc, while stealing the SDLP's clothes etc and to maximise the Nationalist vote at the next election, yeah, I can see all that. But to borrow a soccer analogy, that's all just fannying about outside the penalty area, playing neat tiki-taka to entertain the fans in the stand, without ever getting a shot on target, never mind scoring a goal, the "target" being a United Ireland.

Or so I thought.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PMThey have been getting lauded from (almost) all directions for how they've handled the last few days - most notably from middle grounders who are the very people that need to be brought on board for what is now an inevitable border poll and like all SF does - it's geared towards a successful border poll.
Christ! Do you really believe that?

Were I a Shinner, positively the last thing I'd want would be a border poll. I mean, why suffer the humiliation of losing?

For if anything, this week's activities have made a UI vote further away, not closer, on two counts.

1. "Normalising" politics in NI does nothing for Republicanism, since the closer NI gets to normality, the less pressing the need of Nationalists for a UI.

2. And even if they can maximise their share of the Nationalist/Republican vote, as I've said on here before,  a referendum is a very different proposition from an election (see eg Scotland, Brexit). And for SF to get over the 42-43% level at which Nationalism has plateaued in every election this century, they need to start persuading a significant section of the Unionist community to cease to be Unionists, reject their life-long identity and vote for something they've opposed for the last, well, forever.

And on that score, the DUP/TUV hardliners are (predictably enough) spitting feathers, while the moderates remain unmoved, seeing it all for what it actually is i.e. shameless, cynical politicking. But either way, it doesn't make any of them less of a Unionist.

Quote from: Snapchap on September 14, 2022, 01:00:20 PM
As I say, I take no pleasure seeing them greet monarchs, but the reality is that it's nothing new nowadays. No existing SF voters are going to get too annoyed today at Michelle O'Neill for shaking a royal's hand. Why would they? She didn't break any new ground. SF politicians, Michelle included, have been meeting british royals for the last ten years ever since Martin McGuinness took the step first back and shook Lizzie's hand in 2012.

Seems to me that SF have had everything to gain and nothing really to lose this last week and that's how they've played it.
Nothing to lose bar their dignity and nothing to gain, full stop.

Seems to me that it wasn't just the Queen who died last week, but another little bit of Irish Republicanism.

But while we  Unionists can proclaim: "The Queen is dead, Long Live the King", what has SF got to offer next?

Taking their seats in Westminster?

Hell, why not - they've sold out on just about everything else!


WUM, yawn, move on

Wow! That's me told and no mistake!

Anyhow, thank you for that searing, insightful analysis, I see I have now to rethink everything I thought I knew about Irish politics.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on September 20, 2022, 12:09:26 PM
Could yis not keep the same shite yis go over and over onto the one thread?

This thread is for her maj and her maj only

I see the official period of mourning is now over i was mistaken in saying it went on for another ten days. Bit of a relief as this wearing black and being sad was beginning to bring me down tbh
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Dougal Maguire on September 20, 2022, 12:16:30 PM
I think the TUV website sums up the confusion. Critical of SF for being respectful critical of Celtic fans for being disrespectful
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: general_lee on September 20, 2022, 12:25:31 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 20, 2022, 01:11:56 AM
It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️
That tldr waffle shows that some within the Unionist community are truly rattled.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 20, 2022, 07:26:56 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 20, 2022, 01:11:56 AM
It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️
A sure sign that Sinn Fein are finally on the right track.
Except that I wasnt berating them, I was analysing their current political stance, from a Unionist perspective.

My point being that of course I prefer that they are now playing politics rather than paramilitarism etc, but either way, I genuinely don't see how their current strategy is any more likely to bring about a UI than their previous one.

Quote from: Hound on September 20, 2022, 07:26:56 AMSF doing the decent thing is shocking and scary. You'll never change the hardliners on both sides from being upset at them doing that, but everyone else thinks they've played a blinder. Keep this up and the moderate unionists won't be so frightened of what a UI might look like.
This (moderate) Unionist is neither "shocked" nor "scared".

While not being frightened of something is not the same as being positively enthusiastic for it.

And if Irish Nationalism is to have any hope of achieving a majority for a UI in a referendum, they need to persuade a sizeable proportion of  the Unionist population to become enthusiastic Nationalists.

And whatever the events of the last 11 days have told us about SF etc, it has also told us that the Unionist/British identity in NI is as strong as ever.


Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 20, 2022, 07:50:42 AM
Unionism is really struggling to process the normalisation of SF by everyone other than them and the straw clutching will go on.
Correction: party political Unionism may be struggling etc, but so what?

For as well as manadating a place for Nationalism in any devolved government in NI, the GFA also mandated a place for Unionism. And since one cannot proceed without the other, then nothing is changed whether the FM be SF and the DFM is DUP, or vice versa.

Quote from: johnnycool on September 20, 2022, 07:50:42 AMIn the meantime the battle for the middle ground in NI goes on as it is they who will decide the constitutional question when it comes and it's coming.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6f/34/8d/6f348d642484d50529c9dd9c177e6b5e.jpg)

Which one are you?
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: imtommygunn on September 20, 2022, 12:47:10 PM
QuoteFor as well as manadating a place for Nationalism in any devolved government in NI, the GFA also mandated a place for Unionism. And since one cannot proceed without the other, then nothing is changed whether the FM be SF and the DFM is DUP, or vice versa.

A place for nationalism but as long as it's not first minister eh?

Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Franko on September 20, 2022, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 20, 2022, 07:26:56 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 20, 2022, 01:11:56 AM
It's a mad world we live in these days when Unionists berate SF for not being Republican enough. 🤷‍♂️
A sure sign that Sinn Fein are finally on the right track.
Except that I wasnt berating them, I was analysing their current political stance, from a Unionist perspective.

My point being that of course I prefer that they are now playing politics rather than paramilitarism etc, but either way, I genuinely don't see how their current strategy is any more likely to bring about a UI than their previous one.

Quote from: Hound on September 20, 2022, 07:26:56 AMSF doing the decent thing is shocking and scary. You'll never change the hardliners on both sides from being upset at them doing that, but everyone else thinks they've played a blinder. Keep this up and the moderate unionists won't be so frightened of what a UI might look like.
This (moderate) Unionist is neither "shocked" nor "scared".

While not being frightened of something is not the same as being positively enthusiastic for it.

And if Irish Nationalism is to have any hope of achieving a majority for a UI in a referendum, they need to persuade a sizeable proportion of  the Unionist population to become enthusiastic Nationalists.

And whatever the events of the last 11 days have told us about SF etc, it has also told us that the Unionist/British identity in NI is as strong as ever.

'Moderate' is a simple word, but one that you clearly do not understand

By your own admission, there is nothing which would divert you from being unionist in your political views

That sort of attitude is anything but moderate

Thus (and as stated before), people with your viewpoint are not the demographic that Nationalism needs to appeal to

Not only do you erroneously appear to think yourself a member of this group, but you've also seemingly appointed yourself as their spokesperson  ;D
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: dec on September 20, 2022, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 12:58:22 PM
By your own admission, there is nothing which would divert you from being unionist in your political views

That sort of attitude is anything but moderate

Does that mean that any nationalist who is not open to becoming a Unionist is not a moderate?
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 01:16:10 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
That entire post reminds me of James Molyneaux proclaiming that "a prolonged IRA ceasefire could be the most destabilising thing to happen to unionism since partition".
Would that be the same James Molyneux who ceased to be politicalyl relevant sometime before the end of the last century?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
Your post absolutely screams of your discomfort at the positive reaction SF have been getting from the 'middle of the roaders' over the last week. SF won't have lost any support from it's base over the course of the last few days - they've been greeting royal visitors here for a decade after all (and I remember the jibes from opponents predicting that it meant SF were about to take their seats in Westminster back then too ::)).
What you infer and what I imply, never mind state, are two very different things.

For I am not at all "discomforted" by the sight of SF having to move away from everything that they used to hold dear, if anything I am somewhat amused by it. (Nor btw did I predict eg that they will take their seats at Westminster, rather I suggested that they might as well.)

Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AMSo while they won't have lot support, they will however have gained a degree of support from the middle of the road. The same people you no doubt know are key to a border poll.

And then to cap the post off with the claim that Irish Republicanism is dying, at a time when SF's is now the largest party north and south, and still growing?? You're some ostrich.
They won't have lost support. Indeed they most likely have gained support.

But the point is that such shifts are entirely within the Nationalist spectrum, meaning that if eg I were an SDLP supporter, I could well be discomforted etc, but as a Unionist, I am not moved, either literally or figuratively..

Ditto the emergence of SF as a force in ROI. For if anything, that trend only makes a UI vote in a referendum LESS likely not more, on the basis that while  some moderate Unionists might be persuadable that in principle at least, a UI could be good for them, Hell will freezr over before we will trust our fate to a UI where SF has the whip hand.

As for you "midlle of the road" manoeuvering, where you're going wrong is in imagining that there is only one road in NI, with one middle. Whereas the reality is that there are two roads, a Nationalist one and a Unionist one. And while SF may have made gains in the middle lane of theirs, unless or until Nationalism can persuade a sizeable proportion of Unionists that we should all be "On the One Road", then they have no hope of gaining a majority in any referendum.

Which is why I am not at all disacomforted by the events of the last few days, since as well as movement by and within Nationalism etc, this Ostrich has also observed the other lesson to be drawn, namely that support for the Union within Unionism, whether party political or cultural, is as strong as ever.

And unless or until that latter changes, there simply won't be a UI.

Which I am entirely comfortable with.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Dougal Maguire on September 20, 2022, 01:16:23 PM
I hear that 250,000 people visited the Queen's lying in state. Clearly she's not as big a draw as Garth Brooks
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Franko on September 20, 2022, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: dec on September 20, 2022, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 12:58:22 PM
By your own admission, there is nothing which would divert you from being unionist in your political views

That sort of attitude is anything but moderate

Does that mean that any nationalist who is not open to becoming a Unionist is not a moderate?

There is a spectrum - just because they are not nationalist, doesn't automatically make someone unionist (or vice versa)

Those of a unionist persuasion like to describe such people (on the nationalist side) as 'nationalists, who are happy with the status quo'

But anyone who states that no amount of inducement would change their political stance, is not moderate in their views
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: johnnycool on September 20, 2022, 01:34:20 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 20, 2022, 07:50:42 AM
Unionism is really struggling to process the normalisation of SF by everyone other than them and the straw clutching will go on.
Correction: party political Unionism may be struggling etc, but so what?

For as well as manadating a place for Nationalism in any devolved government in NI, the GFA also mandated a place for Unionism. And since one cannot proceed without the other, then nothing is changed whether the FM be SF and the DFM is DUP, or vice versa.

Quote from: johnnycool on September 20, 2022, 07:50:42 AMIn the meantime the battle for the middle ground in NI goes on as it is they who will decide the constitutional question when it comes and it's coming.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6f/34/8d/6f348d642484d50529c9dd9c177e6b5e.jpg)

Which one are you?

Political unionism (I stand corrected) has veered deep into it's hardline (but diminishing) base to maintain it's vote but has it left a lot of unionist voters behind for the Alliance and apathy? And how will the small u respond when the UK's economy nose dives even further with Truss and the right wing think tanks at the helm?

Not sure what you are getting at with that, but in terms of the constitutional question I'm all on for a UI for several reasons, mostly economic as the industry I work in is much better paid in the South (not just the greater Dublin area), the NHS is no longer recognisable to the one of my youth and most of my adult life and educationally my kids would be no worse off and probably better.

BUT,
    There will need to be a place for Stormont as well as whatever form a national Gov that evolves to give some feel of normality to the wee six for quite a while, decades, IMO.

Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 01:54:45 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 11:42:53 AM
EG's theory in a nutshell:

A person can only ever become more resolved towards Unionism, never less.  Once a unionist, always a unionist, regardless of circumstance.
No, I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is that Sinn Fein will not persuade Unionists to become Nationalists, whether by bullet or ballot. On the contrary, the more successful SF become in persuading people within their own community, the less likely Unionists are to be persuaded by them, not more.

Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 11:42:53 AMNationalists, however, are capable of become non-nationalists (or at the very least agnostic about the subject) at the drop of a crown hat.

Which is utter nonsense.
It is not "noinsense", rather as very opinion poll this century has shown, it is demonstrable fact.

For it didn't take the "droip of a hat", regal or otherwise, rather it took the end of The Troubles, the implementation of the GFA and the relative peace of the last 30-odd years to elicit change in some Nationalist thinking in NI.

Which is not to say that they are any "less Nationalist" in terms of identity and aspiration etc, nor in their voting habits in ordinary elections.

But now that the GFA has guaranteed their right to express ad uphold their Irish identity in all the different ways which that entails (culture, language, sport, arts etc), there has undeniably emerged a small but significant strand within Nationalism in NI which is no longer desperate to achieve a UI.

Meaning that if it ever came to a referendum, some Nationalists aren't likely to vote at all, while some might even vote to remain. And even if were only talking about a few, for any vote for a UI to succeed, then it would take 100% of Nationalists to turn out and vote for it.

And then for a proportion of Unionists to vote for it as well.

And even if the former could be achieved (highly unlikely, imo), then thisUnionist considers that the latter is further away than ever.

All of which explains why, with every electoral success, SF are still not demanding a referendum. Which in turn reflects that their political leaders understand how these things work rather better thsn their supporters.

Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 11:42:53 AMUnsurprising though, as the political leaders of Unionism display a similar head in the sand attitude to the changes occurring in front of their eyes.
This Unionist, at least, is under no illusions as to the mess that the DUP, and TUV etc, have got themselves into.

Nor am I under any illusions as to the harm that that is causing for the lives of people in NI etc.

But as I keep repeating, whatever happens in local elections etc has no little or bearing on how people would vote in a referendum. And to take this right back on topic, whatever the recent manoeuverings of SF etc, I saw nothing in the events of the last couple of weeks to persuade me that Unionists are any less committed to the Union than before.

If anything, those scenes from Westminster and the reaction to them in NI suggest to me that the bond is as strong as ever.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: trailer on September 20, 2022, 01:55:41 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 01:16:10 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
That entire post reminds me of James Molyneaux proclaiming that "a prolonged IRA ceasefire could be the most destabilising thing to happen to unionism since partition".
Would that be the same James Molyneux who ceased to be politicalyl relevant sometime before the end of the last century?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
Your post absolutely screams of your discomfort at the positive reaction SF have been getting from the 'middle of the roaders' over the last week. SF won't have lost any support from it's base over the course of the last few days - they've been greeting royal visitors here for a decade after all (and I remember the jibes from opponents predicting that it meant SF were about to take their seats in Westminster back then too ::)).
What you infer and what I imply, never mind state, are two very different things.

For I am not at all "discomforted" by the sight of SF having to move away from everything that they used to hold dear, if anything I am somewhat amused by it. (Nor btw did I predict eg that they will take their seats at Westminster, rather I suggested that they might as well.)

Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AMSo while they won't have lot support, they will however have gained a degree of support from the middle of the road. The same people you no doubt know are key to a border poll.

And then to cap the post off with the claim that Irish Republicanism is dying, at a time when SF's is now the largest party north and south, and still growing?? You're some ostrich.
They won't have lost support. Indeed they most likely have gained support.

But the point is that such shifts are entirely within the Nationalist spectrum, meaning that if eg I were an SDLP supporter, I could well be discomforted etc, but as a Unionist, I am not moved, either literally or figuratively..

Ditto the emergence of SF as a force in ROI. For if anything, that trend only makes a UI vote in a referendum LESS likely not more, on the basis that while  some moderate Unionists might be persuadable that in principle at least, a UI could be good for them, Hell will freezr over before we will trust our fate to a UI where SF has the whip hand.

As for you "midlle of the road" manoeuvering, where you're going wrong is in imagining that there is only one road in NI, with one middle. Whereas the reality is that there are two roads, a Nationalist one and a Unionist one. And while SF may have made gains in the middle lane of theirs, unless or until Nationalism can persuade a sizeable proportion of Unionists that we should all be "On the One Road", then they have no hope of gaining a majority in any referendum.

Which is why I am not at all disacomforted by the events of the last few days, since as well as movement by and within Nationalism etc, this Ostrich has also observed the other lesson to be drawn, namely that support for the Union within Unionism, whether party political or cultural, is as strong as ever.

And unless or until that latter changes, there simply won't be a UI.

Which I am entirely comfortable with.

NI and the Union is crumbling before your very eyes and you can't see it.

Huge energy bills are coming this winter. Lengthy health waiting lists, along with an inaccessible GP service will see off lots of elderly. Schools, Roads all crumbling. Cost of food is sky rocketing. This winter will see a huge spike in deaths. Meanwhile Unionists are shouting about a protocol they have no control over changing. Lots of older generation Unionists will literally die this winter and those deaths are on the DUP and it's voters. 10 days of British ceremonial pomp won't save those people unfortunately.

Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: general_lee on September 20, 2022, 01:59:41 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 01:54:45 PM
Meaning that if it ever came to a referendum, some Nationalists aren't likely to vote at all, while some might even vote to remain.
That would make them Irish Unionists rather than Irish Nationalists.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: screenexile on September 20, 2022, 02:10:25 PM
EG's post is a bit deep for what I see going on.

Sinn Fein are recognising that those who were around for the armed struggle are on the way out and that votes are going to be won in the future are from young progressives and that getting that vote over the next 10 years and convincing them a UI is in their best interests is how to get it done. New votes are going to go to Greens/Alliance so that's where SF's focus has to lie.

The DUP have gone the opposite way which is the road to no town they are on the slide bigtime!
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 02:12:42 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 01:16:10 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
That entire post reminds me of James Molyneaux proclaiming that "a prolonged IRA ceasefire could be the most destabilising thing to happen to unionism since partition".
Would that be the same James Molyneux who ceased to be politicalyl relevant sometime before the end of the last century?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
Your post absolutely screams of your discomfort at the positive reaction SF have been getting from the 'middle of the roaders' over the last week. SF won't have lost any support from it's base over the course of the last few days - they've been greeting royal visitors here for a decade after all (and I remember the jibes from opponents predicting that it meant SF were about to take their seats in Westminster back then too ::)).
What you infer and what I imply, never mind state, are two very different things.

For I am not at all "discomforted" by the sight of SF having to move away from everything that they used to hold dear, if anything I am somewhat amused by it. (Nor btw did I predict eg that they will take their seats at Westminster, rather I suggested that they might as well.)

Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AMSo while they won't have lot support, they will however have gained a degree of support from the middle of the road. The same people you no doubt know are key to a border poll.

And then to cap the post off with the claim that Irish Republicanism is dying, at a time when SF's is now the largest party north and south, and still growing?? You're some ostrich.
They won't have lost support. Indeed they most likely have gained support.

But the point is that such shifts are entirely within the Nationalist spectrum, meaning that if eg I were an SDLP supporter, I could well be discomforted etc, but as a Unionist, I am not moved, either literally or figuratively..

Ditto the emergence of SF as a force in ROI. For if anything, that trend only makes a UI vote in a referendum LESS likely not more, on the basis that while  some moderate Unionists might be persuadable that in principle at least, a UI could be good for them, Hell will freezr over before we will trust our fate to a UI where SF has the whip hand.

As for you "midlle of the road" manoeuvering, where you're going wrong is in imagining that there is only one road in NI, with one middle. Whereas the reality is that there are two roads, a Nationalist one and a Unionist one. And while SF may have made gains in the middle lane of theirs, unless or until Nationalism can persuade a sizeable proportion of Unionists that we should all be "On the One Road", then they have no hope of gaining a majority in any referendum.

Which is why I am not at all disacomforted by the events of the last few days, since as well as movement by and within Nationalism etc, this Ostrich has also observed the other lesson to be drawn, namely that support for the Union within Unionism, whether party political or cultural, is as strong as ever.

And unless or until that latter changes, there simply won't be a UI.

Which I am entirely comfortable with.

I just haven't the time right now to reply to each point, but one bit of ostrich behaviour really jumped out there - your claim that support for the union is as strong as ever. That's some claim. The most recent poll (Lucid Talk) gives the pro-union vote a 7% lead over the UI side. Are you seriously saying that a 7% majority is "as strong" a pro-union majority as there's been since the formation of the state? Interestingly, the same poll states that a large majority of young voters (aged 18-25) by a margin of 57% to 35% would vote for a United Ireland today, while a majority of all voters would like to see a united Ireland within the next 20 years (by a margin of 51% to 44%). Again, are you saying that's the strongest support for the union there's ever been?

Ostrich.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Franko on September 20, 2022, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 01:54:45 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 11:42:53 AM
EG's theory in a nutshell:

A person can only ever become more resolved towards Unionism, never less.  Once a unionist, always a unionist, regardless of circumstance.
No, I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is that Sinn Fein will not persuade Unionists to become Nationalists, whether by bullet or ballot. On the contrary, the more successful SF become in persuading people within their own community, the less likely Unionists are to be persuaded by them, not more.

Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 11:42:53 AMNationalists, however, are capable of become non-nationalists (or at the very least agnostic about the subject) at the drop of a crown hat.

Which is utter nonsense.
It is not "noinsense", rather as very opinion poll this century has shown, it is demonstrable fact.

For it didn't take the "droip of a hat", regal or otherwise, rather it took the end of The Troubles, the implementation of the GFA and the relative peace of the last 30-odd years to elicit change in some Nationalist thinking in NI.

Which is not to say that they are any "less Nationalist" in terms of identity and aspiration etc, nor in their voting habits in ordinary elections.

But now that the GFA has guaranteed their right to express ad uphold their Irish identity in all the different ways which that entails (culture, language, sport, arts etc), there has undeniably emerged a small but significant strand within Nationalism in NI which is no longer desperate to achieve a UI.

Meaning that if it ever came to a referendum, some Nationalists aren't likely to vote at all, while some might even vote to remain. And even if were only talking about a few, for any vote for a UI to succeed, then it would take 100% of Nationalists to turn out and vote for it.

And then for a proportion of Unionists to vote for it as well.

And even if the former could be achieved (highly unlikely, imo), then thisUnionist considers that the latter is further away than ever.

All of which explains why, with every electoral success, SF are still not demanding a referendum. Which in turn reflects that their political leaders understand how these things work rather better thsn their supporters.

Quote from: Franko on September 20, 2022, 11:42:53 AMUnsurprising though, as the political leaders of Unionism display a similar head in the sand attitude to the changes occurring in front of their eyes.
This Unionist, at least, is under no illusions as to the mess that the DUP, and TUV etc, have got themselves into.

Nor am I under any illusions as to the harm that that is causing for the lives of people in NI etc.

But as I keep repeating, whatever happens in local elections etc has no little or bearing on how people would vote in a referendum. And to take this right back on topic, whatever the recent manoeuverings of SF etc, I saw nothing in the events of the last couple of weeks to persuade me that Unionists are any less committed to the Union than before.

If anything, those scenes from Westminster and the reaction to them in NI suggest to me that the bond is as strong as ever.

1.

Unfortunately for you, it's not only SF who are doing the persuading these days.  Large strands of civic nationalism have started to beat the drum, with ever greater fervour


2.
This (ex-Unionist) disagrees with you

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/james-nesbitt-wants-new-union-of-ireland-as-he-reveals-project-to-give-voice-to-silent-majority-38287899.html

"People from the North, of my tradition, would feel that they have their identity, that it is in no way threatened, that they have an equal voice, that they are part of a society that is progressive, inclusive, diverse," Nesbitt said.

"That they have prosperity, that they're not marginalised, and that they can be proud to be from the north of Ireland in a new union of Ireland."

"Among my friends, who are all boys who are Protestants, well, men, we're all 54, they would really consider now what the notion of a new union of Ireland might look like, and I think there's a lot of people that think that."


2a.
Time to invest in a bigger screen


Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: grounded on September 20, 2022, 04:20:59 PM
It sounds as if EG is trying to persuade himself that the Union is safe rather than other board members on here.
       Its amazing the way Unionist language has changed regarding a UI.
          First it was ' there will never be a Nationalist majority ' then as the demographic change was demonstrated it moved to
         ' Nationalists are too well off in the UK and would suffer in terms of finance, education, welfare and healthcare' they would never vote for a UI '
         Its now evolving into a 50+1 majority is no longer acceptable. So called parrallel consent.
         All to avoid the glaring reality that there will be a UI referendum at some stage.
           
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 05:21:52 PM
Quote from: grounded on September 20, 2022, 04:20:59 PM
It sounds as if EG is trying to persuade himself that the Union is safe rather than other board members on here.
       Its amazing the way Unionist language has changed regarding a UI.
          First it was ' there will never be a Nationalist majority ' then as the demographic change was demonstrated it moved to
         ' Nationalists are too well off in the UK and would suffer in terms of finance, education, welfare and healthcare' they would never vote for a UI '
         Its now evolving into a 50+1 majority is no longer acceptable. So called parrallel consent.
         All to avoid the glaring reality that there will be a UI referendum at some stage.
         

This is a unionist obsession. Almost every single day there's at least one line of text in the Newsletter saying "Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom." It's like a mantra they have to keep repeating to themselves for their own mental health. I can't remember the last time I heard someone say "California is part of the United States," but then people here seem to be a bit more secure in their identity.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: general_lee on September 20, 2022, 05:42:21 PM
Basically convincing themselves that a UI is never going to happen is their way of "selling the union".
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: armaghniac on September 20, 2022, 07:14:40 PM
Quote from: general_lee on September 20, 2022, 05:42:21 PM
Basically convincing themselves that a UI is never going to happen is their way of "selling the union".

It is a bit like the smoking ban, people convinced themselves that they would always be able to smoke in a pub.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: seafoid on September 20, 2022, 07:26:37 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.
https://youtu.be/eY2FgX6dhCc
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.

I remember one time the then Prince Charles visited the north. Loyalists were out in the street trying to wave at the car going past, all wrapped up in union jacks and union jack clothing, jumping, smiling and cheering in the street when he went past like it was the greatest day of their lives.

F*****g weird.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 20, 2022, 10:59:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.

I remember one time the then Prince Charles visited the north. Loyalists were out in the street trying to wave at the car going past, all wrapped up in union jacks and union jack clothing, jumping, smiling and cheering in the street when he went past like it was the greatest day of their lives.

F*****g weird.

I know it's weird that a group of people will wave flags and cheer on a prince/monarch and another group who don't.

Be much better if everyone in the world would catch themselves on.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: michaelg on September 20, 2022, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.
The same argument could be made in reverse.  10,000 pished up folk singing Ooh Aah Up the Ra in Falls Park springs to mind.

Do you not accept that Unionists in Northern Ireland have a British identity?  Republicans telling them that are not not is not going to really win hearts and minds in any debate around a UI.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 21, 2022, 12:31:34 AM
Quote from: michaelg on September 20, 2022, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.
The same argument could be made in reverse.  10,000 pished up folk singing Ooh Aah Up the Ra in Falls Park springs to mind.

Do you not accept that Unionists in Northern Ireland have a British identity?  Republicans telling them that are not not is not going to really win hearts and minds in any debate around a UI.

Could it? Any time Michael D goes to visit the north I don't think you'll see many fenians out in the street wrapped up in tricolours with faces painted green white and orange, jumping about and saying "this place is on the island of Ireland, you know" every five minutes.

I think nationalists are much more comfortable in their Irish identity and don't feel the need to flaunt it as hard as the unionists do with theirs.

Can't fly the tricolour from City Hall every day of the year? Nationalists be like "oh well, we'd better get on with fixing the potholes then."

Can't fly the jack from City Hall every day of the year? Unionists be like "This is an attack on my identity! Grrrr! If I don't get to see that flag every day on a public building then it diminishes my Britishness! Let's get out onto the street, wreck the place in protest, and we'll blame SF/IRA for making us do it! No surrender! "
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: johnnycool on September 21, 2022, 08:15:35 AM
Quote from: michaelg on September 20, 2022, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.
The same argument could be made in reverse.  10,000 pished up folk singing Ooh Aah Up the Ra in Falls Park springs to mind.

Do you not accept that Unionists in Northern Ireland have a British identity?  Republicans telling them that are not not is not going to really win hearts and minds in any debate around a UI.
Nobody is denying Unionism their British identity, heck the place is awash with it from the names of the Belfast bridges, roads etc etc but you can't say the same about the concerted attacks and denial of Irish identity by political Unionism.

The flag protest at Belfast City hall was purely to bring the days the Union Jack were flown in line with the government legislation used in government buildings such as Stormont and the likes but was twisted as something different.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on September 21, 2022, 08:31:40 AM
That's something that gets me a bit. There is a line spun that the British culture is being denied because the union jack is *only* flown on designated days like everywhere else as opposed to every day and because a very very small percentage of parades are not allowed when the number of parades have grown anyway so there are probably more than there ever were!

I honestly don't see that anyone is denying you a right to have a british culture michaelg. I just don't see it.

I don't know if you intertwine orangeism and the british culture together too but the hanging effigies of nationalist politicians and then that being on display at family events has to stop. The culture could exist no problem and tbh I don't even care about the tricolours on the bonfires as union jacks find the same fate but that kind of thing has to stop and until it does no acceptance should be expected.

Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: grounded on September 21, 2022, 09:31:18 AM
Quote from: michaelg on September 20, 2022, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.
The same argument could be made in reverse.  10,000 pished up folk singing Ooh Aah Up the Ra in Falls Park springs to mind.

Do you not accept that Unionists in Northern Ireland have a British identity?  Republicans telling them that are not not is not going to really win hearts and minds in any debate around a UI.

Ah Michael, the old chesnut one side is as bad as the other.
           A scenic drive down from Newry to Newcastle by a tourist would soon dispel that myth. 
            Coming into Newry from the Belfast/Armagh road you'd swear it was a loyalist town with all the flags and paraphernalia up year round. You'd see the odd tricolour around Newry at Easter but apart from that you'd be hard pressed to find  any visible presence of Nationalism.
             Head on down to Warrenpoint, Rostrevor and Killowen and its the same story story. Then entering the town of Kilkeel (what a treat your eyes are in for). Union jacks, UVF, Para and YCV flags adorn every lampost going. Im sure the tourists are just enamored.
             A quick spin out the road takes you to Ballymartin(again loyalists flags coming into the small Nationalist village) and then onto the town of Annalong which has slighly higher ratio of Union Jacks to UVF flags than Kilkeel( as its a wee bit more upmarkety).
            Head on out the road to the more mixed tourist town of Newcastle and  very few flags of any description. The tourists seem to flock to Newcastle, Warrenpoint and Rostrevor, very little to Annalong and not at all Kilkeel.
            They all have beautiful scenery, with the ferry coming from greenore they should be booming. Why are they not Michael?
           
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: general_lee on September 21, 2022, 09:34:54 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 20, 2022, 10:59:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.

I remember one time the then Prince Charles visited the north. Loyalists were out in the street trying to wave at the car going past, all wrapped up in union jacks and union jack clothing, jumping, smiling and cheering in the street when he went past like it was the greatest day of their lives.

F*****g weird.

I know it's weird that a group of people will wave flags and cheer on a prince/monarch and another group who don't.

Be much better if everyone in the world would catch themselves on.
It's weird when people, especially working class people, many of whom haven't a pot to piss in, wave flags and cheer on unelected head of state millionaires. It's even weirder when they claim to be socialists! It actually would be much better if everyone living in monarchies caught themselves on!
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Snapchap on September 21, 2022, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: michaelg on September 20, 2022, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.
The same argument could be made in reverse.  10,000 pished up folk singing Ooh Aah Up the Ra in Falls Park springs to mind.

Do you not accept that Unionists in Northern Ireland have a British identity?  Republicans telling them that are not not is not going to really win hearts and minds in any debate around a UI.

A sing song is not the same as the identity insecurity we see from unionism. As others have pointed out, anywhere that's even close to majority unionist, is automatically bedecked in red, white and blue paint and flegs all year round. The same insecurity and clinging to symbols of culture isn't the case in Nationalist areas. And that's in a state that has historically tried to erase overt symbols of Irishness. To quote Conor Murphy: "The DUP say that even giving Irish speakers basic rights would lead to cultural domination. I reflect on that sometimes as I drive up to Stormont, over Queen Elizabeth Bridge, along the Prince of Wales Avenue, past the statue of Carson, into a the building with Britannia written on the roof, many days under two union flags, park next to where Craig is buried and then I see Craigavon's statue at the top of the stairs. I think to myself: we really must do more to reflect Unionist culture in this place."
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: armaghniac on September 21, 2022, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: michaelg on September 20, 2022, 11:04:56 PM

The same argument could be made in reverse.  10,000 pished up folk singing Ooh Aah Up the Ra in Falls Park springs to mind.

Do you not accept that Unionists in Northern Ireland have a British identity?  Republicans telling them that are not not is not going to really win hearts and minds in any debate around a UI.
.

People at concerts sing at sorts of stuff "way oh" and the like.Excessive analysis of such things is pointless.

As fir unionists having a British identity, nobody objects to that.what people object to is them declaring the place to be British and getting the British Army to intimidate everyone else much as some people who identify as Russian are doing in Ukraine at present.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 21, 2022, 10:13:10 AM
Not to mention trying to intimidate people who identify as  Irish into observing a British Bank Holiday for the British Monarch's funeral.
I'm sure those British people who live in loads of Independent Countries around the World can still be British without having the Country they live in ruled by Westminster.
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: general_lee on September 21, 2022, 09:34:54 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 20, 2022, 10:59:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.

I remember one time the then Prince Charles visited the north. Loyalists were out in the street trying to wave at the car going past, all wrapped up in union jacks and union jack clothing, jumping, smiling and cheering in the street when he went past like it was the greatest day of their lives.

F*****g weird.

I know it's weird that a group of people will wave flags and cheer on a prince/monarch and another group who don't.

Be much better if everyone in the world would catch themselves on.
It's weird when people, especially working class people, many of whom haven't a pot to piss in, wave flags and cheer on unelected head of state millionaires. It's even weirder when they claim to be socialists! It actually would be much better if everyone living in monarchies caught themselves on!

Why does waving flegs at people annoy you? If you go to any football game you've headers waving flags at millionaire footballers and going crazy during the game when they put the ball in the net! Mad I know, and these are people from mainly working class areas without a pot to piss in but head over in bus loads to a different country and spend whatever money they can in a foreign land  :)

I think there are more important things to worry about than people waving flegs at kings/queens there are another 42 countries that do it

Here's the problem though being from one grouping and not understanding the other grouping (regardless of what you think) it's wrong, and if we continue to do this then you'll never see a UI in your life time or even your kids lifetime. Those are the hard facts
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: general_lee on September 21, 2022, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: general_lee on September 21, 2022, 09:34:54 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 20, 2022, 10:59:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2022, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.

I remember one time the then Prince Charles visited the north. Loyalists were out in the street trying to wave at the car going past, all wrapped up in union jacks and union jack clothing, jumping, smiling and cheering in the street when he went past like it was the greatest day of their lives.

F*****g weird.

I know it's weird that a group of people will wave flags and cheer on a prince/monarch and another group who don't.

Be much better if everyone in the world would catch themselves on.
It's weird when people, especially working class people, many of whom haven't a pot to piss in, wave flags and cheer on unelected head of state millionaires. It's even weirder when they claim to be socialists! It actually would be much better if everyone living in monarchies caught themselves on!

Why does waving flegs at people annoy you? If you go to any football game you've headers waving flags at millionaire footballers and going crazy during the game when they put the ball in the net! Mad I know, and these are people from mainly working class areas without a pot to piss in but head over in bus loads to a different country and spend whatever money they can in a foreign land  :)

I think there are more important things to worry about than people waving flegs at kings/queens there are another 42 countries that do it

Here's the problem though being from one grouping and not understanding the other grouping (regardless of what you think) it's wrong, and if we continue to do this then you'll never see a UI in your life time or even your kids lifetime. Those are the hard facts
People waving flags doesn't annoy me, unelected multimillionaires as heads of state annoy me. You might enjoy living in a monarchy, that's on you. if you're happy enough funding their sex crime cases, their property portfolios, their multimillion renovations etc. more power to you. Personally I prefer democracy, it doesn't come down to being from one grouping and understanding another grouping - there are plenty of British republicans in England Scotland and Wales. So long as I pay taxes to the UK treasury I will oppose the monarchy and support abolishment.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on September 21, 2022, 11:06:05 AM
Got tickets to the Ireland's Future event on 1st October in 3 arena, impressive line up. Interesting to see what comes out of it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
If you can pull up where I said I enjoy it or happy enough funding it then go ahead. Knock yourself out.. Making stuff up that I said doesn't make your post any better..

If you care to look then you'll see I've said I'm not a royalist, can I understand people who are? Yes they feel they want that head of state to be a monarch and are happy enough to pay for that, if there was an opt in or out for their contributions you will defo getting plenty of 'Royalist' opting out on the fly ;) so that they can save their money and spend it on other millionaires playing football

You prefer democracy, that's great, last time I heard this place was a democracy with voted in politicians (as useless as they are at present) but there is a big cohort that love that monarch thing and are willing to wave flegs at it, that's ok, it has no authority in policy making, just accept that in the UK there won't be an abolishment of that, certainly not in your tax paying or children's tax paying days
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Franko on September 21, 2022, 12:00:37 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on September 20, 2022, 01:16:10 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
That entire post reminds me of James Molyneaux proclaiming that "a prolonged IRA ceasefire could be the most destabilising thing to happen to unionism since partition".
Would that be the same James Molyneux who ceased to be politicalyl relevant sometime before the end of the last century?

Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
Your post absolutely screams of your discomfort at the positive reaction SF have been getting from the 'middle of the roaders' over the last week. SF won't have lost any support from it's base over the course of the last few days - they've been greeting royal visitors here for a decade after all (and I remember the jibes from opponents predicting that it meant SF were about to take their seats in Westminster back then too ::)).
What you infer and what I imply, never mind state, are two very different things.

For I am not at all "discomforted" by the sight of SF having to move away from everything that they used to hold dear, if anything I am somewhat amused by it. (Nor btw did I predict eg that they will take their seats at Westminster, rather I suggested that they might as well.)

Quote from: Snapchap on September 20, 2022, 11:28:11 AMSo while they won't have lot support, they will however have gained a degree of support from the middle of the road. The same people you no doubt know are key to a border poll.

And then to cap the post off with the claim that Irish Republicanism is dying, at a time when SF's is now the largest party north and south, and still growing?? You're some ostrich.
They won't have lost support. Indeed they most likely have gained support.

But the point is that such shifts are entirely within the Nationalist spectrum, meaning that if eg I were an SDLP supporter, I could well be discomforted etc, but as a Unionist, I am not moved, either literally or figuratively..

Ditto the emergence of SF as a force in ROI. For if anything, that trend only makes a UI vote in a referendum LESS likely not more, on the basis that while  some moderate Unionists might be persuadable that in principle at least, a UI could be good for them, Hell will freezr over before we will trust our fate to a UI where SF has the whip hand.

As for you "midlle of the road" manoeuvering, where you're going wrong is in imagining that there is only one road in NI, with one middle. Whereas the reality is that there are two roads, a Nationalist one and a Unionist one. And while SF may have made gains in the middle lane of theirs, unless or until Nationalism can persuade a sizeable proportion of Unionists that we should all be "On the One Road", then they have no hope of gaining a majority in any referendum.

Which is why I am not at all disacomforted by the events of the last few days, since as well as movement by and within Nationalism etc, this Ostrich has also observed the other lesson to be drawn, namely that support for the Union within Unionism, whether party political or cultural, is as strong as ever.

And unless or until that latter changes, there simply won't be a UI.

Which I am entirely comfortable with.

This is typical of the 1960's thinking on display from political unionism at the minute.

In reality, there are many 'roads' in NI

But there are not 2, but 3 core groupings - the Unionist, the Nationalist and the Other

It's the 'others' that political unionism continues to alienate and whilst you seem to like to think of yourself as superior to those politicians, this little paragraph clearly displays that your thinking is right down there in the mire with them.

It's the others who will decide this debate eventually and whilst nationalism (civic and political) is making efforts to understand and cater for their motivations, Unionism, as evidenced above, either forgets or denies that they exist.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: bennydorano on September 21, 2022, 12:58:58 PM
EG assumes that Unionism will always accept continuing right wing idiotic politics. The penny may actually drop at some stage that political Unionism doesn't have their best interests at heart.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on September 21, 2022, 01:31:20 PM
Is that true of all unionism though? The DUP are blatantly very self serving and tbh do very little for their voters. Would we say every unionist party is the same?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on September 21, 2022, 01:36:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
If you can pull up where I said I enjoy it or happy enough funding it then go ahead. Knock yourself out.. Making stuff up that I said doesn't make your post any better..
I said you might enjoy it, no need to thank me for clarifying.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
If you care to look then you'll see I've said I'm not a royalist, can I understand people who are? Yes they feel they want that head of state to be a monarch and are happy enough to pay for that, if there was an opt in or out for their contributions you will defo getting plenty of 'Royalist' opting out on the fly ;) so that they can save their money and spend it on other millionaires playing football
Fair play to you for understanding the royalist psyche, like I said I can't get my head round it - particularly people from working class backgrounds swooning over incredibly wealthy people that hate them... now adulation for millionaire footballers I find easy to understand, especially when many of the players themselves are from working class backgrounds; and unlike the Windsors footballers have actually earned their money, however overpaid they might be.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
You prefer democracy, that's great, last time I heard this place was a democracy with voted in politicians (as useless as they are at present) but there is a big cohort that love that monarch thing and are willing to wave flegs at it, that's ok, it has no authority in policy making, just accept that in the UK there won't be an abolishment of that, certainly not in your tax paying or children's tax paying days
The UK is not a true democracy, a monarchy is the antithesis of democracy. You say the crown has no authority in policy making, you might want to read a little further into exactly what the English royal family are able to do in terms of interfering; and what they have done in the past when it comes to lobbying and vetting laws before they are passed.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on September 21, 2022, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 21, 2022, 01:31:20 PM
Is that true of all unionism though? The DUP are blatantly very self serving and tbh do very little for their voters. Would we say every unionist party is the same?

Doug tentatively dips his toes into the moderate ground before taking fear and pulling back out due to whatever fears of being labelled a Lundy if you don't toe the LCC/Jim Allister/Bin Bryson line.

Needs to grow a set and show that unionism is secure in their heritage and all those who share this place to promote the Irish language and culture accordingly

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 02:03:27 PM
Quote from: general_lee on September 21, 2022, 01:36:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
If you can pull up where I said I enjoy it or happy enough funding it then go ahead. Knock yourself out.. Making stuff up that I said doesn't make your post any better..
I said you might enjoy it, no need to thank me for clarifying.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
If you care to look then you'll see I've said I'm not a royalist, can I understand people who are? Yes they feel they want that head of state to be a monarch and are happy enough to pay for that, if there was an opt in or out for their contributions you will defo getting plenty of 'Royalist' opting out on the fly ;) so that they can save their money and spend it on other millionaires playing football
Fair play to you for understanding the royalist psyche, like I said I can't get my head round it - particularly people from working class backgrounds swooning over incredibly wealthy people that hate them... now adulation for millionaire footballers I find easy to understand, especially when many of the players themselves are from working class backgrounds; and unlike the Windsors footballers have actually earned their money, however overpaid they might be.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
You prefer democracy, that's great, last time I heard this place was a democracy with voted in politicians (as useless as they are at present) but there is a big cohort that love that monarch thing and are willing to wave flegs at it, that's ok, it has no authority in policy making, just accept that in the UK there won't be an abolishment of that, certainly not in your tax paying or children's tax paying days
The UK is not a true democracy, a monarchy is the antithesis of democracy. You say the crown has no authority in policy making, you might want to read a little further into exactly what the English royal family are able to do in terms of interfering; and what they have done in the past when it comes to lobbying and vetting laws before they are passed.



You seem to know a lot about the Royals, good man yourself.. Footballers earn their money  :D :D
Title: Re: Re: Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022
Post by: Applesisapples on September 28, 2022, 02:00:27 PM
Quote from: michaelg on September 20, 2022, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 20, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
A lot of unionists seem to  go  "all out" to prove   their loyalty,  attachment etc to Britain at every available opportunity.  A royal visit/event ,  the 12th, team GB Olympic team etc . Anything that has a  crown or Union Jack attached , they go Over the top

It's like they  have to prove to  Britain, to northern nationalists, and mostly , themselves ..that  they are so British, so loyal to Britain , the crown and  anything remotely   British.
The same argument could be made in reverse.  10,000 pished up folk singing Ooh Aah Up the Ra in Falls Park springs to mind.

Do you not accept that Unionists in Northern Ireland have a British identity?  Republicans telling them that are not not is not going to really win hearts and minds in any debate around a UI.
That is generally accepted by all nationalists. The big elephant in the room is the inability of unionism to accept the nationalist identity, culture, language and sport as legitimate. The Ra ceased to exist 20 years ago, the UVF and UDA are still running community's with the tacit acceptance of political unionism. This state does not reflect the identity of nearly half it's population and every attempt to make it more reflective is seen as a loss of Britishness and that is the rock on which the union will perish, aided and abetted by a UK government that is a shit show and becoming more English focused.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on October 16, 2022, 12:07:37 PM
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/alliance-party-votes-against-call-25267176#l9b8qmx7w0f7pwn3nig

Posh Unionists.

They do have plenty of decent people involved. Hopefully this is a wake up call to them and to all voting for them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on October 16, 2022, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: general_lee on September 21, 2022, 01:36:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
If you can pull up where I said I enjoy it or happy enough funding it then go ahead. Knock yourself out.. Making stuff up that I said doesn't make your post any better..
I said you might enjoy it, no need to thank me for clarifying.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
If you care to look then you'll see I've said I'm not a royalist, can I understand people who are? Yes they feel they want that head of state to be a monarch and are happy enough to pay for that, if there was an opt in or out for their contributions you will defo getting plenty of 'Royalist' opting out on the fly ;) so that they can save their money and spend it on other millionaires playing football
Fair play to you for understanding the royalist psyche, like I said I can't get my head round it - particularly people from working class backgrounds swooning over incredibly wealthy people that hate them... now adulation for millionaire footballers I find easy to understand, especially when many of the players themselves are from working class backgrounds; and unlike the Windsors footballers have actually earned their money, however overpaid they might be.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 21, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
You prefer democracy, that's great, last time I heard this place was a democracy with voted in politicians (as useless as they are at present) but there is a big cohort that love that monarch thing and are willing to wave flegs at it, that's ok, it has no authority in policy making, just accept that in the UK there won't be an abolishment of that, certainly not in your tax paying or children's tax paying days
The UK is not a true democracy, a monarchy is the antithesis of democracy. You say the crown has no authority in policy making, you might want to read a little further into exactly what the English royal family are able to do in terms of interfering; and what they have done in the past when it comes to lobbying and vetting laws before they are passed.

Yeah , anyone  who thinks the royals have no power or  influence are extremely naive
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on October 20, 2022, 04:56:41 PM
Jimmy Nesbitt graffiti in Portrush  after he was  at the United Ireland debate.  I'm surprised it took so long

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-63325994
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-63325994)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on November 17, 2022, 11:11:06 AM
There will never be a United ireland who in there right mind would pay to see their GP, the NHS blah blah blah. Oh wait
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on November 17, 2022, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 17, 2022, 11:11:06 AM
There will never be a United ireland who in there right mind would pay to see their GP, the NHS blah blah blah. Oh wait
If the NHS is your argument against a United Ireland then you havent much of a leg to stand on these days!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on November 17, 2022, 11:16:34 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on November 17, 2022, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 17, 2022, 11:11:06 AM
There will never be a United ireland who in there right mind would pay to see their GP, the NHS blah blah blah. Oh wait
If the NHS is your argument against a United Ireland then you havent much of a leg to stand on these days!

Exactly it doesn't stop the idiots that keep insisting on using it as some sort of positive when it is clear to see that it has been on its knees for yrs esp in NI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on November 17, 2022, 12:11:42 PM
I think the  inevitable deliberate disentegration of the nhs will hasten  support for a united ireland.  For all it's faults and struggles,  the nhs in terms of free* medical care is one less cost for people,  but if it's taken away then  it'll be the same as the south in terms of private health insurance for  a huge swathe of the population .

By the way ,  what would be the average cost of annual health insurance in the south for the average person?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on November 17, 2022, 12:15:37 PM
Read a good soccer analogy from a unionist perspective yesterday ref. the GFA and any border poll ...

Nationalism are playing the golden goal, unionism are defending the goal, nationalism only has to score once and the game ends. 

That pretty much sums up the current situation.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on November 17, 2022, 12:30:45 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on November 17, 2022, 12:15:37 PM
Read a good soccer analogy from a unionist perspective yesterday ref. the GFA and any border poll ...

Nationalism are playing the golden goal, unionism are defending the goal, nationalism only has to score once and the game ends. 

That pretty much sums up the current situation.

You could say Unionism has been  defending the goal since 1922.  Nationalism just couldn't get a sniff  of  the  ball until now
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smort on November 17, 2022, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on November 17, 2022, 12:30:45 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on November 17, 2022, 12:15:37 PM
Read a good soccer analogy from a unionist perspective yesterday ref. the GFA and any border poll ...

Nationalism are playing the golden goal, unionism are defending the goal, nationalism only has to score once and the game ends. 

That pretty much sums up the current situation.

You could say Unionism has been  defending the goal since 1922.  Nationalism just couldn't get a sniff  of  the  ball until now

And actually have more players on the pitch

Result = inevitable
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 17, 2022, 12:56:32 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on November 17, 2022, 12:11:42 PM
I think the  inevitable deliberate disentegration of the nhs will hasten  support for a united ireland.  For all it's faults and struggles,  the nhs in terms of free* medical care is one less cost for people,  but if it's taken away then  it'll be the same as the south in terms of private health insurance for  a huge swathe of the population .

By the way ,  what would be the average cost of annual health insurance in the south for the average person?
You don't actually need private health Insurance but it saves a lot of waiting if you have a non lifethreatening ailment.
Cost of PHI.... like how much is a car.... depends on what you buy.
Cheapest with some private hospital cover  around  €700 to €850 for adults.
Dearest prob €5k.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on November 17, 2022, 01:14:08 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on November 17, 2022, 12:15:37 PM
Read a good soccer analogy from a unionist perspective yesterday ref. the GFA and any border poll ...

Nationalism are playing the golden goal, unionism are defending the goal, nationalism only has to score once and the game ends. 

That pretty much sums up the current situation.

For decades Unionism had the referees on their side and they also had a numerical advantage. That numerical advantage has now gone and it is a level playing field. In the years ahead Unionism will be at a numerical disadvantage but instead of changing their tactics they simply retreat further into their hardline defensive shell. Rinse repeat.     
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 17, 2022, 03:15:09 PM
Re the health thing, NI is much worse then England, and it is going down the tubes in recent years

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fhoc2DCXoAMiTjh?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on November 17, 2022, 05:13:35 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 17, 2022, 12:56:32 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on November 17, 2022, 12:11:42 PM
I think the  inevitable deliberate disentegration of the nhs will hasten  support for a united ireland.  For all it's faults and struggles,  the nhs in terms of free* medical care is one less cost for people,  but if it's taken away then  it'll be the same as the south in terms of private health insurance for  a huge swathe of the population .

By the way ,  what would be the average cost of annual health insurance in the south for the average person?
You don't actually need private health Insurance but it saves a lot of waiting if you have a non lifethreatening ailment.
Cost of PHI.... like how much is a car.... depends on what you buy.
Cheapest with some private hospital cover  around  €700 to €850 for adults.
Dearest prob €5k.

I have PHI for the fam and I am in the North. £80 odd a month.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on November 17, 2022, 06:25:54 PM
https://unherd.com/2022/11/sinn-fein-has-given-up-on-a-united-ireland/

Should nearly go in the WTF tread.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 17, 2022, 09:13:05 PM
Quote from: pbat on November 17, 2022, 06:25:54 PM
https://unherd.com/2022/11/sinn-fein-has-given-up-on-a-united-ireland/

Should nearly go in the WTF tread.

Indeed, once you came to the bit about the prosperity of NI ensuring its continuation.
However, it is true that SF have little real interest in unity. Progress requires a proper economic model, Paschal Donohue has done more to bring that about than SF who have policies for spending money but few for developing the economy to pay for this.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 18, 2022, 06:44:29 PM
26 Cos taxpayers helping out the poor relations again

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2022/1117/1336770-bridge-tender/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on November 21, 2022, 11:30:17 AM
I have reached the conclusion that a UI is without doubt going to happen. It will not however be delivered by politicians, but happen organically. I also think that the Shared Island project will be instrumental in its delivery over the next 20 years. There is an acceptance in the broader unionist community that we are on that path although they won't voice it publicly. It needs to happen in a way that does not further alienate loyalist working classes who currently live in fear of the bogey men that is the nationalist community. Their fears need to be assuaged. 50+1 might be the law but continuously shouting about it only stokes loyalist fears.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 23, 2022, 11:08:14 PM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41013740.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on November 24, 2022, 01:26:55 PM
Preparing for it because the direction of travel is going one way

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1gl7F74SrICVww1Bs5zuAG?si=GQPUU7c5TA-HDsCc23WT2A
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 28, 2022, 10:56:21 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41016404.html

Get off ye're asses and do a bit of work!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mourne Red on November 28, 2022, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 28, 2022, 10:56:21 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41016404.html

Get off ye're asses and do a bit if work!!

That's the increase in Polish and Romanians down South picking up all the work from you slackers down there  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: north_antrim_hound on November 28, 2022, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on November 28, 2022, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 28, 2022, 10:56:21 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41016404.html

Get off ye're asses and do a bit if work!!

That's the increase in Polish and Romanians down South picking up all the work from you slackers down there  ;)

And the thousands of Northern Ireland people working down there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on November 28, 2022, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on November 28, 2022, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on November 28, 2022, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 28, 2022, 10:56:21 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41016404.html

Get off ye're asses and do a bit if work!!

That's the increase in Polish and Romanians down South picking up all the work from you slackers down there  ;)

And the thousands of Northern Ireland people working down there.

SOuth Armagh people generally work in the South, this reduces NI productivity and increases 26 county productivity, so creating this gap.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on November 28, 2022, 03:21:29 PM
Quote
QuoteNew research by
@ESRIDublin
suggests productivity (economic output per worker) is 40% lower in Northern Ireland than in the Republic with this gap opening up over the last 20 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 28, 2022, 03:58:59 PM
No surprise
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on November 28, 2022, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 28, 2022, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on November 28, 2022, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on November 28, 2022, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 28, 2022, 10:56:21 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41016404.html

Get off ye're asses and do a bit if work!!

That's the increase in Polish and Romanians down South picking up all the work from you slackers down there  ;)

And the thousands of Northern Ireland people working down there.

SOuth Armagh people generally work in the South, this reduces NI productivity and increases 26 county productivity, so creating this gap.

There's 2.5m people in the Irish workforce atm

Are you seriously saying a few subbies from crossmaglen are the reason for the 40% difference

Remarkable
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smort on November 28, 2022, 06:36:26 PM
I think it was a joke clonadmad
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on November 28, 2022, 08:29:28 PM
It's all them hard working Poles, Romanians, Northern Ireland people and South Armagh subbies ;D
Ye're some craic trying to maintain the stereotypes!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Franko on November 28, 2022, 08:44:35 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on November 28, 2022, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 28, 2022, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on November 28, 2022, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on November 28, 2022, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 28, 2022, 10:56:21 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41016404.html

Get off ye're asses and do a bit if work!!

That's the increase in Polish and Romanians down South picking up all the work from you slackers down there  ;)

And the thousands of Northern Ireland people working down there.

SOuth Armagh people generally work in the South, this reduces NI productivity and increases 26 county productivity, so creating this gap.

There's 2.5m people in the Irish workforce atm

Are you seriously saying a few subbies from crossmaglen are the reason for the 40% difference

Remarkable

Yet still not the most remarkable thing about this particular back-and-forth!

;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on November 29, 2022, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 28, 2022, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on November 28, 2022, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on November 28, 2022, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 28, 2022, 10:56:21 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41016404.html

Get off ye're asses and do a bit if work!!

That's the increase in Polish and Romanians down South picking up all the work from you slackers down there  ;)

And the thousands of Northern Ireland people working down there.

SOuth Armagh people generally work in the South, this reduces NI productivity and increases 26 county productivity, so creating this gap.

Younger brother in Dublin working with a bunch of builders from the North, not much good paying work in the North in the building trades, but not sure whether that would have a huge difference of 40% but certainly a negative figure for the north
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 12:55:20 PM
Yous do realise that productivity is measured in how efficient you are as a worker not how many workers there are?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on November 29, 2022, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 12:55:20 PM
Yous do realise that productivity is measured in how efficient you are as a worker not how many workers there are?

So only if they are actually working in the south and not just standing about?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 29, 2022, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 12:55:20 PM
Yous do realise that productivity is measured in how efficient you are as a worker not how many workers there are?

So only if they are actually working in the south and not just standing about?

Yes. if you need to make 10 loaves and it takes a bakery in Derry 12 people to do it and the one in Donegal 6 they are more productive.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on November 29, 2022, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 29, 2022, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 12:55:20 PM
Yous do realise that productivity is measured in how efficient you are as a worker not how many workers there are?

So only if they are actually working in the south and not just standing about?

Yes. if you need to make 10 loaves and it takes a bakery in Derry 12 people to do it and the one in Donegal 6 they are more productive.

Most of those Derry wans are probably eating the loaves

I assume you know how it works, you don't get paid unless its done, this is the private sector not the public, be a wasted journey just to see the capital
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 29, 2022, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 29, 2022, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 29, 2022, 12:55:20 PM
Yous do realise that productivity is measured in how efficient you are as a worker not how many workers there are?

So only if they are actually working in the south and not just standing about?

Yes. if you need to make 10 loaves and it takes a bakery in Derry 12 people to do it and the one in Donegal 6 they are more productive.

Most of those Derry wans are probably eating the loaves

I assume you know how it works, you don't get paid unless its done, this is the private sector not the public, be a wasted journey just to see the capital

Only eat turnovers and baps , not sure how productivity is measured in public, in a hospital it would be something like patient throughput and leadtime
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 03, 2022, 12:02:12 PM
Only 55% of "NI Catholics" would vote for a UI :o
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/12/03/poll-shows-northern-ireland-rejects-unity-by-large-margin/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: snoopdog on December 03, 2022, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2022, 12:02:12 PM
Only 55% of "NI Catholics" would vote for a UI :o
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/12/03/poll-shows-northern-ireland-rejects-unity-by-large-margin/
This isn't really a surprise. Most people would say its at least 10 years too soon gor a vote on unity. And there is no discussion on how things will look in a UI. Health education tax the 3 big tickets.  With the NHS in a mess though it's no longer the Beacon it once was. People are cautious to make decisions that will hit them in the pocket.  Another thing with polls it all depends where the  poll was Done.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 03, 2022, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: snoopdog on December 03, 2022, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2022, 12:02:12 PM
Only 55% of "NI Catholics" would vote for a UI :o
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/12/03/poll-shows-northern-ireland-rejects-unity-by-large-margin/
This isn't really a surprise. Most people would say its at least 10 years too soon gor a vote on unity. And there is no discussion on how things will look in a UI. Health education tax the 3 big tickets.  With the NHS in a mess though it's no longer the Beacon it once was. People are cautious to make decisions that will hit them in the pocket.  Another thing with polls it all depends where the  poll was Done.

The point about this is the Don't Know. Anyone that would sign a blank cheque is an eejit, I wouldn't because it could mean that the British would get off the hook in a proper settlement re pensions etc. The hard work of defining things has not been done and it would take 5 years to do that in any case .

I haven't (yet) read this, but a question like "would you welcome a United Ireland if proper arrangements were made and a majority agreed to it" might be more informative.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rois on December 03, 2022, 01:34:07 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 03, 2022, 01:20:58 PM

I haven't (yet) read this, but a question like "would you welcome a United Ireland if proper arrangements were made and a majority agreed to it" might be more informative.
A million times this.
Nobody knows what they would be voting for.
SDLP have appointed a new director of policy (I won't comment on the choice of appointee), whose main role is to oversee the development of their New Ireland Commission's work. This is a positive step in trying to put meat on the bones. Aligns with what Mary Lou was saying on the Late Late last night.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on December 03, 2022, 02:35:37 PM
At 26% for Unity, that poll is surprisingly low compared to recent Lucid and University of Liverpool polls. Especially considering the shitshow that is lack of Assembly, Brexit and the Tories mismanagement of the economy, and north not even getting energy payments yet. ipsos is a credible polling company but very disappointing numbers.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on December 03, 2022, 02:37:53 PM
But at a high level, wouldn't you think more than 55% would aspire to a United Ireland?
Maybe there's more partitionists among "your own" than you'd like to admit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on December 03, 2022, 02:44:03 PM
There probably are I imagine.

The capitulation of the nhs may change some of that I think.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on December 03, 2022, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: snoopdog on December 03, 2022, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2022, 12:02:12 PM
Only 55% of "NI Catholics" would vote for a UI :o
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/12/03/poll-shows-northern-ireland-rejects-unity-by-large-margin/
This isn't really a surprise. Most people would say its at least 10 years too soon gor a vote on unity. And there is no discussion on how things will look in a UI. Health education tax the 3 big tickets.  With the NHS in a mess though it's no longer the Beacon it once was. People are cautious to make decisions that will hit them in the pocket.  Another thing with polls it all depends where the  poll was Done.

There's also the issue that people have lived in relative peace for almost 30 years now.  A transition to a United Ireland has some potential to upend that.  That could be a factor for some of the 45% in that poll.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 03, 2022, 03:42:04 PM
This is a rather odd poll in many ways
However, a large majority in the south want unity and a majority want a poll within 5 years, so there is a clear mandate for some planning work on how things would work.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Dire Ear on December 03, 2022, 07:28:19 PM
Probably the wrong thread for this question...but is/will there be a recession in the 26 while there's one in the 6? Thinking workwise in the new year?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Windmill abu on December 03, 2022, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on December 03, 2022, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: snoopdog on December 03, 2022, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2022, 12:02:12 PM
Only 55% of "NI Catholics" would vote for a UI :o
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/12/03/poll-shows-northern-ireland-rejects-unity-by-large-margin/
This isn't really a surprise. Most people would say its at least 10 years too soon gor a vote on unity. And there is no discussion on how things will look in a UI. Health education tax the 3 big tickets.  With the NHS in a mess though it's no longer the Beacon it once was. People are cautious to make decisions that will hit them in the pocket.  Another thing with polls it all depends where the  poll was Done.

There's also the issue that people have lived in relative peace for almost 30 years now.  A transition to a United Ireland has some potential to upend that.  That could be a factor for some of the 45% in that poll.

The threat of loyalist violence may be a factor in maintaining the status quo. but people have to realise that after a vote in favour of a U.I. The police force which currently protects them will have been replaced by the Garda who will make being a loyalist paramilitary a less attractive position.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 03, 2022, 07:43:29 PM
You assume the 6 will be incorporated into the 26?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on December 03, 2022, 07:57:26 PM
If the Unionist leadership was anyway smart which they ain't

They would call a referendum now while it's still winnable

Win it and Kill it,for a generation at least

Just copy and paste what's happened in Scotland
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on December 03, 2022, 08:03:28 PM
Looking deeper into the Irish Times/IPSOS poll it's says only 57% of Sinn Fein voters in North and 34% of SDLP voters support Irish Unity. That seems shockingly low for nationalist parties. It could be a really bad sample by ipsos or have they bought into narrative that Ireland is a failed state with record homeless and health waiting list crisis, and economically they are better off in UK.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 03, 2022, 09:04:59 PM
A lot of these people are not very tuned in and do not know that health waiting times are presently worse in the 6 counties.
SF have a narrative about Tories in London and Dublin and they ensure that there is no clamour for unity.
I'll hazard a guess that if SF get into government in the 26 that the services will improve greatly, according to them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on December 04, 2022, 08:49:14 AM
Quote from: Dire Ear on December 03, 2022, 07:28:19 PM
Probably the wrong thread for this question...but is/will there be a recession in the 26 while there's one in the 6? Thinking workwise in the new year?
Very possible. Hearing Dublin slowing up
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 04, 2022, 01:21:41 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on December 04, 2022, 08:49:14 AM
Quote from: Dire Ear on December 03, 2022, 07:28:19 PM
Probably the wrong thread for this question...but is/will there be a recession in the 26 while there's one in the 6? Thinking workwise in the new year?
Very possible. Hearing Dublin slowing up

It depends on your business. There is not going to be a widespread recession in the South, but some sectors might fall back a bit.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 05, 2022, 09:47:35 AM
Still helping the poor relations....

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2022/1205/1339934-shared-island/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 05, 2022, 11:19:52 AM
Quote from: Windmill abu on December 03, 2022, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on December 03, 2022, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: snoopdog on December 03, 2022, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 03, 2022, 12:02:12 PM
Only 55% of "NI Catholics" would vote for a UI :o
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/12/03/poll-shows-northern-ireland-rejects-unity-by-large-margin/
This isn't really a surprise. Most people would say its at least 10 years too soon gor a vote on unity. And there is no discussion on how things will look in a UI. Health education tax the 3 big tickets.  With the NHS in a mess though it's no longer the Beacon it once was. People are cautious to make decisions that will hit them in the pocket.  Another thing with polls it all depends where the  poll was Done.

There's also the issue that people have lived in relative peace for almost 30 years now.  A transition to a United Ireland has some potential to upend that.  That could be a factor for some of the 45% in that poll.

The threat of loyalist violence may be a factor in maintaining the status quo. but people have to realise that after a vote in favour of a U.I. The police force which currently protects them will have been replaced by the Garda who will make being a loyalist paramilitary a less attractive position.
Exactly, I am broadly in favour of unity. However it has to include some way of mitigating against loyalist violence. it is easy to dismiss it but there is fear in loyalist circles misplaced as we might think it is, it still needs addressed. I also being of a certain age need certainty over the value of pensions and investments (modest) to see be through my  old age.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on December 05, 2022, 12:24:18 PM
Loyalism hasn't the capability to mobilise like in the 70s/80s or 90s as the failed flag protests and subsequent failed protocol protests have demonstrated. They're in the middle of what they would class a "constitutional crisis" and they've done next to f**k all. Loyalist paramilitaries are so caught up in their criminal exploits along with their "community worker" jobs that politics has taken a back seat for the last 20 years. Both the UVF and UDA are completely fractured and are more a collection of rival criminal gangs that happen to operate under the same banner. Their priorities lie in maintaining control of the drugs trade in their respective ghettos while also raising money through extortion, loan sharking, membership fees etc, all simply to line their own pockets. While they have some influence in the shape of the DUP (lol!) we all know how effective they are in achieving their political objectives. I wouldn't completely dismiss the threat posed as we edge closer to a border poll, but it is one that should be easily eliminated should it emerge.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on December 05, 2022, 01:16:16 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

This is the point I find so shocking ... who in their right mind would want to maintain the current status quo in the union.  I wonder what % of catholics have a civil service job in the north, I'd expect those to possibly have a reason to be cautious of constitutional change ... but there's obviously a lot more at play in this survey outside of civil service jobs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: grounded on December 05, 2022, 01:18:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 05, 2022, 09:47:35 AM
Still helping the poor relations....

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2022/1205/1339934-shared-island/

Keep that Euro comin, good lad. Badly needed
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on December 05, 2022, 01:24:42 PM
Yesterdays poll appears to be something of a outlier to say the least. How can support for unity in the north be at 26% if every other poll taken in the past two years has support at between 30%-43%, and averaging at 36%? No doubt Ipsos are a reputable agency, but surely when one result is just so far out from every other poll, it's casts a reasonable doubt. The most accurate polling agency at elections, almost almost without fail, has been Lucid Talk and in their five polls on Unity in the last two years, the support in the north has been found to be 42%, 43%, 42% and 41%. I find 26% to be more than hard to believe.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjIxZWrWQAAS4e0?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:40:57 PM
Face to face was it not? which puts it on a par with nilt for being rubbish. Unfortunately these duff polls will still be used to determine whether a referendum is needed or not.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on December 05, 2022, 01:42:49 PM
Just because we don't like the outcome we cannot discard these polls. Lots of work needs to be done, even to convince SF voters.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on December 05, 2022, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: trailer on December 05, 2022, 01:42:49 PM
Just because we don't like the outcome we cannot discard these polls. Lots of work needs to be done, even to convince SF voters.

Nobody is suggesting any poll can be/should be/could be "discarded". Simply making the point that in terms of support for unity, the findings of this specific poll are so far removed from the finding of every other poll for the past two years, that it's findings can, at the very least, be taken with a large pinch of salt. particularly so when the historically most accurate polling company found support for unity to be at 41% in the most recent poll before this one. Anyone who thinks there has been a swing of 15% in that time needs to get their head looked at.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: trailer on December 05, 2022, 01:42:49 PM
Just because we don't like the outcome we cannot discard these polls. Lots of work needs to be done, even to convince SF voters.

If the methodology is flawed then it's a problem. Nilt often has the support for the various parties completely different to actual election results so should be questioned straight away. The fact that people vote in a booth by themselves should be reflected in a poll, hence face to face is just idiotic and not exactly scientific. The problem is the SOS will probably use polls as one of his /her few tools to assess whether a unity ref is justified. I might take my own poll at the the next wolf tones concert as a fair reflection of society here and submit the results ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on December 05, 2022, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

Neither the NHS or our pensions are safe. Sure they near blew the pensions with your woman Truss's budget.

There's buck all safe with the tories. Nothing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on December 05, 2022, 01:59:23 PM
If the poll was accurate, it would mean that unity was losing 19% points from Sinn Fein and SDLP voters. I am basing that on Sinn Fein at 30% (13% of the 30 not voting UI) and SDLP at 9% (6% of the 9% not voting UI). Hard to believe that is accurate. If it is, then Michele and Colum have a job on their hands to sell unity. However Ireland's Future needs less grey haired cranky old men. Some of those lads are about as effective selling unity as Arlene will be selling the Union. Freshen it up with younger, diverse voices.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on December 05, 2022, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 05, 2022, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

Neither the NHS or our pensions are safe. Sure they near blew the pensions with your woman Truss's budget.

There's buck all safe with the tories. Nothing.

We'll only find that out nearer the time.

As soon as I can pull some cash out of my pension pot I will, as it's the next big financial scam looming on the horizon.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on December 05, 2022, 02:01:15 PM
Seems this poll was commissioned by the 'ARINS' project and carried out by Ipsos. The last time a poll showed this little support for Irish Unity in the north was in one carried out in 2018 (it actually had support for unity lower, at 21%). It too was commissioned by the 'ARINS' project and carried out by Ipsos.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 05, 2022, 02:01:31 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on December 05, 2022, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 05, 2022, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

Neither the NHS or our pensions are safe. Sure they near blew the pensions with your woman Truss's budget.

There's buck all safe with the tories. Nothing.

We'll only find that out nearer the time.

As soon as I can pull some cash out of my pension pot I will, as it's the next big financial scam looming on the horizon.

The Old trusty Rovers biscuit tin for me
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 05, 2022, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

Neither the NHS or our pensions are safe. Sure they near blew the pensions with your woman Truss's budget.
S
There's buck all safe with the tories. Nothing.

Thats the point. The NHS is f@cked so why is it still being used as a positive in the discussion. As for the pensions as has been pointed out before plenty of expats still pick up their pensions. If the pensions actually collapse in the UK well then it doesn't matter if we are in the UK or Ire  we don't get anything either way.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 05, 2022, 03:50:32 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 05, 2022, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

Neither the NHS or our pensions are safe. Sure they near blew the pensions with your woman Truss's budget.
S
There's buck all safe with the tories. Nothing.

Thats the point. The NHS is f@cked so why is it still being used as a positive in the discussion. As for the pensions as has been pointed out before plenty of expats still pick up their pensions. If the pensions actually collapse in the UK well then it doesn't matter if we are in the UK or Ire  we don't get anything either way.

Many people are ignorant and don't keep up to date. For instance, the ROI government abolished all hospital charges for public care from Jan, but even people in the south don't know that. The perception of enormous charges remains, although all that is left is GP and prescription payments by the richer half of people. 
The pensions thing is actually a bit complicated, and unfortunately some of the answers can only come from London, who are going to act the maggot as usual.
The Dublin government could say "we guarantee all your pensions", but this would let London off the hook.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on December 05, 2022, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 05, 2022, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

Neither the NHS or our pensions are safe. Sure they near blew the pensions with your woman Truss's budget.
S
There's buck all safe with the tories. Nothing.

Thats the point. The NHS is f@cked so why is it still being used as a positive in the discussion. As for the pensions as has been pointed out before plenty of expats still pick up their pensions. If the pensions actually collapse in the UK well then it doesn't matter if we are in the UK or Ire  we don't get anything either way.

Yeah completely in agreement with you.

The tories will shaft you. The NHS is in such a state that if it's not privatised then very soon if anything serious goes wrong with you you're f**ked. What good is a "free" service when if you had something like cancer your scan would take that long to happen you'd be terminal before it did.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on December 05, 2022, 04:51:02 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 05, 2022, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

Neither the NHS or our pensions are safe. Sure they near blew the pensions with your woman Truss's budget.

There's buck all safe with the tories. Nothing.

They want us all dead before we pick up a pension , and  they continue to  move the retirement age further and further away so  even if we do reach it , we'll not be  around long to benefit from it. An absolute scam
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on December 05, 2022, 07:05:06 PM
On State pensions I'd hazard a guess the Brits (or England/Wales) will either
>transfer a Northerner's Insurance Contributions to the new All Ireland State or
> pay them their State Pension at their rates and leave it up to the Irish State to top it up.
That and an awful lot of other details, like will the new State inherit NI% share of the "UK" National debt will be part of the detailed agreement.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on December 05, 2022, 08:36:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 05, 2022, 07:05:06 PM
On State pensions I'd hazard a guess the Brits (or England/Wales) will either
>transfer a Northerner's Insurance Contributions to the new All Ireland State or
> pay them their State Pension at their rates and leave it up to the Irish State to top it up.
That and an awful lot of other details, like will the new State inherit NI% share of the "UK" National debt will be part of the detailed agreement.

The UK will still be responsible for pensions. I live in the US but I will get some UK pension based on the National insurance contributions I made when I worked in NI. My parents worked in the US for a while and got a small US pension after they reached retirement age.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 05, 2022, 11:09:46 PM
The UK is responsible for pensions. But it is split in two, NI becomes responsible for NI pensions and GB for theirs. Therein lies the problem.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on December 06, 2022, 12:08:26 AM
See you's gonna toll the f**k out of everbody down south. You really giving us a tough sell.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on December 06, 2022, 12:11:17 AM
My father was entitled to some sort pension down south, living bck up here, but the bollacks didn't pay as he was collecting a ni pension and some shit but not been entitled to the down south one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: haranguerer on December 06, 2022, 09:32:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 05, 2022, 01:59:23 PM
If the poll was accurate, it would mean that unity was losing 19% points from Sinn Fein and SDLP voters. I am basing that on Sinn Fein at 30% (13% of the 30 not voting UI) and SDLP at 9% (6% of the 9% not voting UI). Hard to believe that is accurate. If it is, then Michele and Colum have a job on their hands to sell unity. However Ireland's Future needs less grey haired cranky old men. Some of those lads are about as effective selling unity as Arlene will be selling the Union. Freshen it up with younger, diverse voices.

This doesn't seem accurate to me, I would say cranky old men very much the minority on any of the lineups I've seen, or indeed on the board
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Tubberman on December 07, 2022, 05:06:27 AM
More from the polls - this is taken from an Irish Times article.
With 73% of people in NI happy to stay in UK, and 92% that wouldn't have a problem with it, its hard to see a UI any time soon.

Quote
In Northern Ireland, just under half (47 per cent) of all voters said they would "happily accept" a vote in favour of unity. A further 26 per cent said that they "would not be happy but could live it", but 18 per cent of all voters — which includes 32 per cent of voters from a Protestant background, and 14 per cent of voters from a non-Catholic and non-Protestant background — said they would find this result "almost impossible to accept".

Acceptance of a pro-union result was much higher. Almost three-quarters of voters (73 per cent) in the North said they would "happily accept" this outcome, with 19 per cent reluctantly accepting it and just 2 per cent who said they would find it "almost impossible to accept".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tonto1888 on December 07, 2022, 07:55:05 AM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 07, 2022, 05:06:27 AM
More from the polls - this is taken from an Irish Times article.
With 73% of people in NI happy to stay in UK, and 92% that wouldn't have a problem with it, its hard to see a UI any time soon.

Quote
In Northern Ireland, just under half (47 per cent) of all voters said they would "happily accept" a vote in favour of unity. A further 26 per cent said that they "would not be happy but could live it", but 18 per cent of all voters — which includes 32 per cent of voters from a Protestant background, and 14 per cent of voters from a non-Catholic and non-Protestant background — said they would find this result "almost impossible to accept".

Acceptance of a pro-union result was much higher. Almost three-quarters of voters (73 per cent) in the North said they would "happily accept" this outcome, with 19 per cent reluctantly accepting it and just 2 per cent who said they would find it "almost impossible to accept".

You could reverse that and say 73% would accept a UI
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 07, 2022, 08:28:49 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on December 06, 2022, 09:32:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 05, 2022, 01:59:23 PM
If the poll was accurate, it would mean that unity was losing 19% points from Sinn Fein and SDLP voters. I am basing that on Sinn Fein at 30% (13% of the 30 not voting UI) and SDLP at 9% (6% of the 9% not voting UI). Hard to believe that is accurate. If it is, then Michele and Colum have a job on their hands to sell unity. However Ireland's Future needs less grey haired cranky old men. Some of those lads are about as effective selling unity as Arlene will be selling the Union. Freshen it up with younger, diverse voices.

This doesn't seem accurate to me, I would say cranky old men very much the minority on any of the lineups I've seen, or indeed on the board

Stale
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 09:55:54 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 05, 2022, 01:59:23 PM
Ireland's Future needs less grey haired cranky old men. Some of those lads are about as effective selling unity as Arlene will be selling the Union. Freshen it up with younger, diverse voices.

Doesn't look like a collection of "grey haired cranky old men" to me  ???
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fdm0G6XXEAw0lqG?format=jpg&name=small)

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 09:58:11 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 02:03:20 PM
Thats the point. The NHS is f@cked so why is it still being used as a positive in the discussion.

A point well articulated by Brian Feeney in today's Irish News:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjXQtzpXEAAyOQ2?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on December 07, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 09:55:54 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 05, 2022, 01:59:23 PM
Ireland's Future needs less grey haired cranky old men. Some of those lads are about as effective selling unity as Arlene will be selling the Union. Freshen it up with younger, diverse voices.

Doesn't look like a collection of "grey haired cranky old men" to me  ???
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fdm0G6XXEAw0lqG?format=jpg&name=small)

I did not mean lineup, and there's been excellent speakers. I mean those running the show, who are essentially the face of Ireland's future. I don't see any 20/30 something's. That's the generation that will bring a United Ireland. I don't think there's anyone under 40. Most are over 50. They should be there, too, of course. But it should be freshened up with younger voices running the show. Fortunately the Union side is doing the same thing with Arlene taking it upon herself to compete with Ireland's future. This happens in all walks of life when something is being advertised to younger people -  a bunch of boomers gather in a room to decide the strategy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 11:48:18 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 07, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 09:55:54 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 05, 2022, 01:59:23 PM
Ireland's Future needs less grey haired cranky old men. Some of those lads are about as effective selling unity as Arlene will be selling the Union. Freshen it up with younger, diverse voices.

Doesn't look like a collection of "grey haired cranky old men" to me  ???
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fdm0G6XXEAw0lqG?format=jpg&name=small)

I did not mean lineup, and there's been excellent speakers. I mean those running the show, who are essentially the face of Ireland's future. I don't see any 20/30 something's. That's the generation that will bring a United Ireland. I don't think there's anyone under 40. Most are over 50. They should be there, too, of course. But it should be freshened up with younger voices running the show. Fortunately the Union side is doing the same thing with Arlene taking it upon herself to compete with Ireland's future. This happens in all walks of life when something is being advertised to younger people -  a bunch of boomers gather in a room to decide the strategy.

Fair enough point that it would be nice to see a few under 40 years of age organising the thing, but I don't think it's fair or accurate to characterise those running Ireland's Future as "grey haired cranky old men" either:

https://irelandsfuture.com/who-we-are/ (https://irelandsfuture.com/who-we-are/)

Always easy to criticise, but it's far more useful to be supportive. To me, that's far from a group of cranky old men. Brian Feeney is possibly the only one that comes close to meeting that description and any civic group's attempts to argue the merits of ending partition would be weaker by his omission. He's incredibly articulate.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on December 07, 2022, 12:15:04 PM
Gerry carlile CEO Ireland's future was in my year at school . He is 44, not old. In general you don't get many twenty year olds in charge of things
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on December 07, 2022, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 11:48:18 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 07, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 09:55:54 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 05, 2022, 01:59:23 PM
Ireland's Future needs less grey haired cranky old men. Some of those lads are about as effective selling unity as Arlene will be selling the Union. Freshen it up with younger, diverse voices.

Doesn't look like a collection of "grey haired cranky old men" to me  ???
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fdm0G6XXEAw0lqG?format=jpg&name=small)

I did not mean lineup, and there's been excellent speakers. I mean those running the show, who are essentially the face of Ireland's future. I don't see any 20/30 something's. That's the generation that will bring a United Ireland. I don't think there's anyone under 40. Most are over 50. They should be there, too, of course. But it should be freshened up with younger voices running the show. Fortunately the Union side is doing the same thing with Arlene taking it upon herself to compete with Ireland's future. This happens in all walks of life when something is being advertised to younger people -  a bunch of boomers gather in a room to decide the strategy.

Fair enough point that it would be nice to see a few under 40 years of age organising the thing, but I don't think it's fair or accurate to characterise those running Ireland's Future as "grey haired cranky old men" either:

https://irelandsfuture.com/who-we-are/ (https://irelandsfuture.com/who-we-are/)

Always easy to criticise, but it's far more useful to be supportive. To me, that's far from a group of cranky old men. Brian Feeney is possibly the only one that comes close to meeting that description and any civic group's attempts to argue the merits of ending partition would be weaker by his omission. He's incredibly articulate.

I subscribe to Irish News just to read Brian Feeney. It was a general comment to point out the movement is too old from a leadership perspective. Not just the men. The women skew older too. Do those voices resonate with someone late teens/early 20s? United Ireland should be sold on the issues that are important to young people and young people should be the ones setting that agenda on what those issues are, not what the fifty and sixty something's think those issues are. It should as I say have the older voices in the room too. It's just missing the most important from the top down. That's not their fault of course. And good to see the movement of young GAA players getting involved  that I read about in the Irish News today.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 07, 2022, 01:34:58 PM
Quote from: weareros on December 07, 2022, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 11:48:18 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 07, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on December 07, 2022, 09:55:54 AM
Quote from: weareros on December 05, 2022, 01:59:23 PM
Ireland's Future needs less grey haired cranky old men. Some of those lads are about as effective selling unity as Arlene will be selling the Union. Freshen it up with younger, diverse voices.

Doesn't look like a collection of "grey haired cranky old men" to me  ???
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fdm0G6XXEAw0lqG?format=jpg&name=small)

I did not mean lineup, and there's been excellent speakers. I mean those running the show, who are essentially the face of Ireland's future. I don't see any 20/30 something's. That's the generation that will bring a United Ireland. I don't think there's anyone under 40. Most are over 50. They should be there, too, of course. But it should be freshened up with younger voices running the show. Fortunately the Union side is doing the same thing with Arlene taking it upon herself to compete with Ireland's future. This happens in all walks of life when something is being advertised to younger people -  a bunch of boomers gather in a room to decide the strategy.

Fair enough point that it would be nice to see a few under 40 years of age organising the thing, but I don't think it's fair or accurate to characterise those running Ireland's Future as "grey haired cranky old men" either:

https://irelandsfuture.com/who-we-are/ (https://irelandsfuture.com/who-we-are/)

Always easy to criticise, but it's far more useful to be supportive. To me, that's far from a group of cranky old men. Brian Feeney is possibly the only one that comes close to meeting that description and any civic group's attempts to argue the merits of ending partition would be weaker by his omission. He's incredibly articulate.

I subscribe to Irish News just to read Brian Feeney. It was a general comment to point out the movement is too old from a leadership perspective. Not just the men. The women skew older too. Do those voices resonate with someone late teens/early 20s? United Ireland should be sold on the issues that are important to young people and young people should be the ones setting that agenda on what those issues are, not what the fifty and sixty something's think those issues are. It should as I say have the older voices in the room too. It's just missing the most important from the top down. That's not their fault of course. And good to see the movement of young GAA players getting involved  that I read about in the Irish News today.

An alternate view is that young people will be relatively easily convinced and probably won't lose much time over pension details. The issue is convincing the age groups who pay for stuff and this campaign should focus on that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on December 07, 2022, 01:51:40 PM
Generally speaking it is younger people that are most open to a unites Ireland. Ireland's Future was meant to have someone from a culturally unionist background speaking, he's in his early 20s but got pulled because he made a few disparaging (yet completely accurate) comments on the DUP
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on December 07, 2022, 02:07:51 PM
End of the day, in real life, people are worried about heating houses, covering insurances, groceries, children and sports/hobbies. Political strive which has been Northern Ireland all my life, justs wear you down, and you just want stability. Havent had it in 20yrs due to people elected who wouldnt interact for the good of all people, just not who they see as there own. I be amazed at some people put forward by parties on all sides, who if you run a real company, wouldn't dream of employing them. The majority are there on the backing of their party and not on what they can do. In a United Ireland I couldn't see that changing, and unlike some people on here, even if I vote for it, I can see us getting f**king toasted in a referendum and put another vote 30 years down the line, (which I not be round to see)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: pbat on December 07, 2022, 06:43:57 PM
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1600469725607211010

56% yes for Scottish Independence
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 07, 2022, 06:54:31 PM
Quote from: pbat on December 07, 2022, 06:43:57 PM
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1600469725607211010

56% yes for Scottish Independence

So 1% more than the proportion of NI "Catholics" who would vote for Irish unity, and sometimes we slag off the Scots.  :(
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 08, 2022, 11:16:58 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on December 05, 2022, 01:16:16 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on December 05, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on December 05, 2022, 12:41:07 PM
Seems the bigger threat to unity comes from indifferent "nationalists" who would have previously have been considered a definite Yes to Unity vote.

Which is crazy when you think about it. Would rather live with the DUP still pulling the strings, a Tory government who don't give a flying f@ck and pretend to themselves that the NHS is amazing and that their pension will be taken away from them if they leave the UK. It's like they  listen to what Bryson, Sammy Wilson etc say and then believe it ffs.

This is the point I find so shocking ... who in their right mind would want to maintain the current status quo in the union.  I wonder what % of catholics have a civil service job in the north, I'd expect those to possibly have a reason to be cautious of constitutional change ... but there's obviously a lot more at play in this survey outside of civil service jobs.
To get all nationalists voting yes you need to map out exactly what is going to happen, most people are adverse to unknown changes to their lives.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 08, 2022, 11:24:25 AM
People in the south favour unity, because they think that Paschal Donohoe, the IDA, the Central Bank etc will make it work. People in the North are used to dealing with SF and rightly want the detail spelt out and they have zero belief in their planning ability and of course SF are always saying how shite the ROI is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on December 09, 2022, 03:42:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 08, 2022, 11:24:25 AM
People in the south favour unity, because they think that Paschal Donohoe, the IDA, the Central Bank etc will make it work. People in the North are used to dealing with SF and rightly want the detail spelt out and they have zero belief in their planning ability and of course SF are always saying how shite the ROI is.
No that is not my position, it will take input from the Southern Government, SF are not in a position to lead on this, unless they become the next Irish government.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 03:58:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 08, 2022, 11:24:25 AM
People in the south favour unity, because they think that Paschal Donohoe, the IDA, the Central Bank etc will make it work. People in the North are used to dealing with SF and rightly want the detail spelt out and they have zero belief in their planning ability and of course SF are always saying how shite the ROI is.

Yes people in the Republic of Ireland are so gullible that they would take the word of politicians and banker and not want the details unlike the much more streetwise northerners
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on December 09, 2022, 04:19:38 PM
No one has ever put forward of excately what they propose. Healthcare, infrastructure funding, pensions, big differences in pay for the same job north and south. Who going to vote for sthing when those looking unity don't put forward excately what they do there. Looking at the way they performed in Stormont past 15+yrs which got very little done, I say putting forward a realistic plan is beyond them and they waiting on somebody else to do it for them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 09, 2022, 04:51:19 PM
A united Ireland is not going to get the support needed until the 40% in the middle shift, as happened in the 1918 election.
And that won't happen until Unionists in South Belfast lose their pensions. Wait at least 20 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 09, 2022, 05:49:48 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 03:58:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 08, 2022, 11:24:25 AM
People in the south favour unity, because they think that Paschal Donohoe, the IDA, the Central Bank etc will make it work. People in the North are used to dealing with SF and rightly want the detail spelt out and they have zero belief in their planning ability and of course SF are always saying how shite the ROI is.

Yes people in the Republic of Ireland are so gullible that they would take the word of politicians and banker and not want the details unlike the much more streetwise northerners

What insight does being streetwise bring to it? At this stage it is as much about economics as anything else.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 09, 2022, 06:19:22 PM
NI is an economic basket case but the 40% won't admit it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 09, 2022, 05:49:48 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 03:58:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 08, 2022, 11:24:25 AM
People in the south favour unity, because they think that Paschal Donohoe, the IDA, the Central Bank etc will make it work. People in the North are used to dealing with SF and rightly want the detail spelt out and they have zero belief in their planning ability and of course SF are always saying how shite the ROI is.

Yes people in the Republic of Ireland are so gullible that they would take the word of politicians and banker and not want the details unlike the much more streetwise northerners

What insight does being streetwise bring to it? At this stage it is as much about economics as anything else.

It is all about economics and if the north was propering there wouldn't be a mention of a UI

But despite NI being a basket case  there's still a significant majority that want to remain tied to the UK and that includes so called nationalists





Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on December 09, 2022, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 09, 2022, 06:19:22 PM
NI is an economic basket case but the 40% won't admit it.

The unionists are fed a lot of propaganda by both their press and politicians. They were pointing out the generous COVID support by British government as a benefit of staying in UK when the Irish gov support far exceeded it, and of course our opposition made it sound like Irish response was poor too. It far exceeded UK in both keeping death rate low, and the monetary payments.

Then they have "economists" like Esmond Birnie (a former UUP politician)  telling them standard of living is worse in the Republic. He writes about costs of protocol while ignoring the sizable increase (over £1bn) of increase in exports from North to South thanks to keeping EU access.

If there's any positive news about Irish economy, the inflated GDP because of US multinationals will be rolled out, ignoring the fact that Ireland will well exceed €20bn in corporate tax this year which resulted in a government surplus to pay for the cost of living crisis while UK will borrow and then put the cost back on the taxpayer. Besides, the North brings in literally nothing in corporate tax. On top of that they got screwed by the stupidity of DUP who are not only causing a delay in tne £600 energy payment but also we're not smart enough to argue that 70% of north is on home heating oil compared to 4% in UK, and are only getting £100 against that, whereas those in GB on Gas will get a higher savings.

That said until Ireland solves housing crisis and waiting lists, bad news will dominate what they are hearing. Even though social housing wait list in north is worse and NHS as many have said is on its knees.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: lenny on December 09, 2022, 06:59:39 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 09, 2022, 05:49:48 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 03:58:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 08, 2022, 11:24:25 AM
People in the south favour unity, because they think that Paschal Donohoe, the IDA, the Central Bank etc will make it work. People in the North are used to dealing with SF and rightly want the detail spelt out and they have zero belief in their planning ability and of course SF are always saying how shite the ROI is.

Yes people in the Republic of Ireland are so gullible that they would take the word of politicians and banker and not want the details unlike the much more streetwise northerners

What insight does being streetwise bring to it? At this stage it is as much about economics as anything else.

It is all about economics and if the north was propering there wouldn't be a mention of a UI

But despite NI being a basket case  there's still a significant majority that want to remain tied to the UK and that includes so called nationalists

Most nationalists who want to stay in the uk do so because of the nhs. They haven't seemed to work out the south have much better health outcomes, a higher standard of living and a significantly higher life expectancy. As regards the nhs, it's on its knees and it's also not free, we pay a significant amount of our taxes to fund it. The south also have much, much higher salaries so I would definitely vote for a UI if given the chance. People need to be given all the information regarding how things would work post a positive UI referendum vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 09, 2022, 07:26:09 PM
Quote from: lenny on December 09, 2022, 06:59:39 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 09, 2022, 05:49:48 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 03:58:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 08, 2022, 11:24:25 AM
People in the south favour unity, because they think that Paschal Donohoe, the IDA, the Central Bank etc will make it work. People in the North are used to dealing with SF and rightly want the detail spelt out and they have zero belief in their planning ability and of course SF are always saying how shite the ROI is.

Yes people in the Republic of Ireland are so gullible that they would take the word of politicians and banker and not want the details unlike the much more streetwise northerners

What insight does being streetwise bring to it? At this stage it is as much about economics as anything else.

It is all about economics and if the north was propering there wouldn't be a mention of a UI

But despite NI being a basket case  there's still a significant majority that want to remain tied to the UK and that includes so called nationalists

Most nationalists who want to stay in the uk do so because of the nhs. They haven't seemed to work out the south have much better health outcomes, a higher standard of living and a significantly higher life expectancy. As regards the nhs, it's on its knees and it's also not free, we pay a significant amount of our taxes to fund it. The south also have much, much higher salaries so I would definitely vote for a UI if given the chance. People need to be given all the information regarding how things would work post a positive UI referendum vote.

If you phoned PaddyPower and asked for the odds that NI would have more charges for health in 2030 than the 26 counties, I wouldn't have thought that you would get great odds.

Your average punter in the 6 counties thinks that I might be €2000 better off in a UI, but I am going to reject that because I might have to pay the doctor €200.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 09, 2022, 08:09:19 PM
Quote from: weareros on December 09, 2022, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 09, 2022, 06:19:22 PM
NI is an economic basket case but the 40% won't admit it.

The unionists are fed a lot of propaganda by both their press and politicians. They were pointing out the generous COVID support by British government as a benefit of staying in UK when the Irish gov support far exceeded it, and of course our opposition made it sound like Irish response was poor too. It far exceeded UK in both keeping death rate low, and the monetary payments.

Then they have "economists" like Esmond Birnie (a former UUP politician)  telling them standard of living is worse in the Republic. He writes about costs of protocol while ignoring the sizable increase (over £1bn) of increase in exports from North to South thanks to keeping EU access.

If there's any positive news about Irish economy, the inflated GDP because of US multinationals will be rolled out, ignoring the fact that Ireland will well exceed €20bn in corporate tax this year which resulted in a government surplus to pay for the cost of living crisis while UK will borrow and then put the cost back on the taxpayer. Besides, the North brings in literally nothing in corporate tax. On top of that they got screwed by the stupidity of DUP who are not only causing a delay in tne £600 energy payment but also we're not smart enough to argue that 70% of north is on home heating oil compared to 4% in UK, and are only getting £100 against that, whereas those in GB on Gas will get a higher savings.

That said until Ireland solves housing crisis and waiting lists, bad news will dominate what they are hearing. Even though social housing wait list in north is worse and NHS as many have said is on its knees.
Most people don't pay attention to details like how health coverages compare. The Irish Times had an article last weak about how Southern voters wouldn't vote for a UI. Most wouldn't be qualified to answer the question. Until there is a Citizens Forum and some sort of massive economic shock, asking people about a UI is pointless.

Erskine Childers did a car tour of the South in 1908 and witnessed a level of deprivation, poverty and inequality that convinced him that Home Rule was the only way forward. When there is comfort and satisfaction, nothing changes . Irish Independent readers in 1920 would have been unionists 20 years previously.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 21, 2022, 12:31:32 PM
This is going to be dynamite in the UI discussions

https://www.military.ie/en/public-information/defence-forces-ceremonial/state-and-military-funerals/

Military Funerals - Authorised Organisations
Military Honours at funerals may be provided only to the following authorised organisations:

The Old Irish Republican Army
Fianna Éireann
The Irish Citizen Army
Cumann na mBan
The Hibernian Rifles
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Baile Brigín 2 on December 21, 2022, 01:12:48 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 09, 2022, 07:26:09 PM
Quote from: lenny on December 09, 2022, 06:59:39 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 09, 2022, 05:49:48 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2022, 03:58:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 08, 2022, 11:24:25 AM
People in the south favour unity, because they think that Paschal Donohoe, the IDA, the Central Bank etc will make it work. People in the North are used to dealing with SF and rightly want the detail spelt out and they have zero belief in their planning ability and of course SF are always saying how shite the ROI is.

Yes people in the Republic of Ireland are so gullible that they would take the word of politicians and banker and not want the details unlike the much more streetwise northerners

What insight does being streetwise bring to it? At this stage it is as much about economics as anything else.

It is all about economics and if the north was propering there wouldn't be a mention of a UI

But despite NI being a basket case  there's still a significant majority that want to remain tied to the UK and that includes so called nationalists

Most nationalists who want to stay in the uk do so because of the nhs. They haven't seemed to work out the south have much better health outcomes, a higher standard of living and a significantly higher life expectancy. As regards the nhs, it's on its knees and it's also not free, we pay a significant amount of our taxes to fund it. The south also have much, much higher salaries so I would definitely vote for a UI if given the chance. People need to be given all the information regarding how things would work post a positive UI referendum vote.

If you phoned PaddyPower and asked for the odds that NI would have more charges for health in 2030 than the 26 counties, I wouldn't have thought that you would get great odds.

Your average punter in the 6 counties thinks that I might be €2000 better off in a UI, but I am going to reject that because I might have to pay the doctor €200.

Is the doctor giving you a happy ending?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on December 21, 2022, 02:17:33 PM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on December 21, 2022, 01:12:48 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 09, 2022, 07:26:09 PM
If you phoned PaddyPower and asked for the odds that NI would have more charges for health in 2030 than the 26 counties, I wouldn't have thought that you would get great odds.

Your average punter in the 6 counties thinks that I might be €2000 better off in a UI, but I am going to reject that because I might have to pay the doctor €200.

Is the doctor giving you a happy ending?

That shows how done people's minds work. I was thínking of 3 visits in the year.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on December 21, 2022, 02:33:12 PM
The NHS here is couped. It is in england though moreso here. I read some more stats today. Apparently we are the highest cost per head however england and scotland don't include social care in their stats.

It is hard to know how long it can go on. I was reading a thread on twitter there from a person in the ambulance service talking about people dying waiting etc. It is completely broken and anyone who thinks that they'll have a better health care service in the UK is kidding themselves. It is honestly moving towards third world kind of service for first world money.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 21, 2022, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 21, 2022, 02:33:12 PM
The NHS here is couped. It is in england though moreso here. I read some more stats today. Apparently we are the highest cost per head however england and scotland don't include social care in their stats.

It is hard to know how long it can go on. I was reading a thread on twitter there from a person in the ambulance service talking about people dying waiting etc. It is completely broken and anyone who thinks that they'll have a better health care service in the UK is kidding themselves. It is honestly moving towards third world kind of service for first world money.

https://philipstephens.substack.com/p/the-state-britain-is-in
The spike in energy prices provided the spark for the present wave of strikes across public services, but the breakdown is structural. It mirrors wilful neglect and underfunding.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on December 21, 2022, 06:30:02 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/107-hours-longest-wait-to-be-admitted-as-hundreds-attend-northern-irelands-emergency-departments-42236287.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/health-bosses-introduce-new-rules-to-help-deeply-distressing-pressures-on-northern-ireland-hospitals-42230491.html

Meanwhile the UK economy is slowly  dying which is bad news for Unionism

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2022/1222/1343279-uk-economy-figures/
"Even if the UK economy avoids a recession - and today's revisions make that harder - it is likely that at least consumer spending and incomes will be falling in Q4 and into 2023," said Elizabeth Martins, senior economist at HSBC.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 15, 2023, 01:58:09 PM
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2023/0115/1346769-united-ireland-is-going-to-look-different-kielty/
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 27, 2023, 08:59:08 AM
On the 12th of July loyalists burn tricolours and re-enact the Battle of the Boyne in places such as Scarva. The poor craythurs.
In a United Ireland could these rituals be moved to County Meath, to the real thing? Or would the victory of Protestantism over Catholic absolutism
be rendered pointless by a United Ireland ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on January 27, 2023, 09:13:04 AM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2023, 08:59:08 AM
On the 12th of July loyalists burn tricolours and re-enact the Battle of the Boyne in places such as Scarva. The poor craythurs.
In a United Ireland could these rituals be moved to County Meath, to the real thing? Or would the victory of Protestantism over Catholic absolutism
be rendered pointless by a United Ireland ?
Half of them don't know what they're celebrating so it's already pointless
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 28, 2023, 01:35:32 PM
Bullshit in the Irish Times

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/01/28/two-thirds-of-people-in-republic-have-no-friends-in-northern-ireland-survey-shows/
"Two-thirds of people in the Republic say they have no friends in Northern Ireland, more than 80 per cent say they have no relations there"

"Northerners are more likely to have connections with the South than vice versa,".
"Still more than half of the people in Northern Ireland say they have no friends in the Republic".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on January 28, 2023, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 28, 2023, 01:35:32 PM
Bullshit in the Irish Times

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/01/28/two-thirds-of-people-in-republic-have-no-friends-in-northern-ireland-survey-shows/
"Two-thirds of people in the Republic say they have no friends in Northern Ireland, more than 80 per cent say they have no relations there"

"Northerners are more likely to have connections with the South than vice versa,".
"Still more than half of the people in Northern Ireland say they have no friends in the Republic".
What makes you think it's bullshit?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on January 28, 2023, 02:25:44 PM
Quote from: dec on January 28, 2023, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 28, 2023, 01:35:32 PM
Bullshit in the Irish Times

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/01/28/two-thirds-of-people-in-republic-have-no-friends-in-northern-ireland-survey-shows/
"Two-thirds of people in the Republic say they have no friends in Northern Ireland, more than 80 per cent say they have no relations there"

"Northerners are more likely to have connections with the South than vice versa,".
"Still more than half of the people in Northern Ireland say they have no friends in the Republic".
What makes you think it's bullshit?
Because if you have a fixed number of friendships, the jurisdiction with the larger number of people will have a smaller percentage of friendships. This bit is really stupid.
Basing an analysis on relations is stupid. Because it is not a good metric. It doesn't change much over time. It doesn't tell us anything relevant.
A lot of the dynamics are driven by geography. I wouldn't expect a massive percentage of people in Kerry to have relations in Louth or Monaghan either. Relations are local or in Dublin for most people.

And " more than half of the people in Northern Ireland say they have no friends in the Republic" would be what you would expect under partition from Unionists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVMgtv9oIM4&t=58s

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on January 28, 2023, 03:58:37 PM
Unionists still hankering after "the good old days 1922-67"

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/a-majority-of-unionists-would-vote-against-1998-good-friday-agreement-today/43633102.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on February 12, 2023, 02:44:00 PM
In a UI how many teams from the North would make it into an all Ireland soccer  Premier Division of say 12?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on February 12, 2023, 03:21:54 PM
Maybe 2, 3 at the most, they way behind the Republic in a financial setting with only Linfield at a low level semi professional.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: An Watcher on February 12, 2023, 05:28:39 PM
The standard in the IFA is nowhere near as good as the FAI.  I think this has been highlighted in European progression recently
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 12, 2023, 05:30:24 PM
Perhaps the whole IFA could enter one team, called our wee country, and preserve the memory of the good old days.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on February 12, 2023, 05:40:41 PM
So the football has followed the same pattern as the economy then. The North was stronger economically and football wise in 1921.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on February 12, 2023, 09:42:00 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on February 12, 2023, 03:21:54 PM
Maybe 2, 3 at the most, they way behind the Republic in a financial setting with only Linfield at a low level semi professional.
Linfield are full time and pretty sure Larne are too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on February 12, 2023, 10:12:11 PM
I do think the loi teams are not as good as European results suggest. The timing of their season has a massive impact with teams they are playing not being much more than pre season.

That being said I don't think too many from up here would make it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: An Watcher on February 12, 2023, 11:30:49 PM
It was a brave step from the LoI a few years ago to switch to summer football.  Other improvements include Friday night football.  All very progressive.  Unfortunately the IL were slower to adapt due to their TRADITIONAL time slot of Saturday football.
The benefit for Europe was obvious and irrespective of when their league starts they still get the same prize money as those who start the league later.  Prize money that can then be fed into different football structures. 
Fair play to them. 
If you sit down and watch LoI teams playing in Europe it is no l9nger hit n hoof.  Proper passing football.  IL a fair bit behind in that regard as well
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smort on February 15, 2023, 10:13:28 AM
Nicola Sturgeon to step down. Likely not good for indyref2 which would have been very interesting for things in the North of this island
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Kidder81 on February 15, 2023, 10:19:43 AM
Quote from: smort on February 15, 2023, 10:13:28 AM
Nicola Sturgeon to step down. Likely not good for indyref2 which would have been very interesting for things in the North of this island

Always thought she was very shrewd and on the ball but I'm not sure she could have handled the trans prison/self ID episodes any worse

Few questions about the husband and a £100k loan to the SNP as well, which Sturgeon said she had no knowledge of  :o
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on February 15, 2023, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: smort on February 15, 2023, 10:13:28 AM
Nicola Sturgeon to step down. Likely not good for indyref2 which would have been very interesting for things in the North of this island
why is she stepping down? She's come out with some mad policies lately! Is this a protest at the Brits blocking another indyref?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: smort on February 15, 2023, 10:34:19 AM
Not sure, press conference at 11
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 15, 2023, 10:37:58 AM
I hope the pro Independence movement won't splinter into infighting groups.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on February 15, 2023, 11:13:07 AM
Now is the perfect time for it too. The most corrupt UK government you'd ever see and the Brexit shambles. Wonder what is going on there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on February 15, 2023, 11:28:31 AM
Independence vote was starting to drop in polls. The Scots are a ropey lot when independence vote drops over gender. Despite all the tartan army and sending proud Edwards army homewards "ta think agin", they are more orange than Gael. Had a great leader in Sturgeon and turned against her.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on February 15, 2023, 11:29:25 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on February 15, 2023, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: smort on February 15, 2023, 10:13:28 AM
Nicola Sturgeon to step down. Likely not good for indyref2 which would have been very interesting for things in the North of this island
why is she stepping down? She's come out with some mad policies lately! Is this a protest at the Brits blocking another indyref?
Probably the same as the ex  NZ PM. She wants a life.
Anyway Scottish independence is more or less secured
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LC on February 15, 2023, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: smort on February 15, 2023, 10:13:28 AM
Nicola Sturgeon to step down. Likely not good for indyref2 which would have been very interesting for things in the North of this island

Politicians in the north will always talk about the border poll as that is what their supporters want to hear.  However politicians here are lot of things but they are not stupid as they even know that Dail Eireann would not have room for them all and all of the hangers on that come with them.  The turkeys will never vote for Christmas instead they will continue to stay on the gravy train that is Stormont.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Sportacus on February 15, 2023, 01:27:18 PM
The News Letter have just called Nicola Sturgeon "the Scottish separatist leader".  What hope is there?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on March 03, 2023, 10:31:28 PM
I see Jon Tonge has produced another survey that is just pure bollocks. Unfortunately these polls and surveys will be taken seriously and will influence  a future SoS on the need for a referendum or not. The guy has a responsibility to actually produce serious surveys and polls that are reflective of the population and not the toilet paper ones he keeps coming up with. The link will show parties disliked by the non nationalist/ unionist voters. This can be proved to be absolute nonsense by actually looking at transfers of these voters in ACTUAL elections.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/majority-of-middle-ground-say-ni-should-remain-as-an-integral-part-of-the-uk-poll/903311698.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on March 03, 2023, 10:59:02 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on March 03, 2023, 10:31:28 PM
I see Jon Tonge has produced another survey that is just pure bollocks. Unfortunately these polls and surveys will be taken seriously and will influence  a future SoS on the need for a referendum or not. The guy has a responsibility to actually produce serious surveys and polls that are reflective of the population and not the toilet paper ones he keeps coming up with. The link will show parties disliked by the non nationalist/ unionist voters. This can be proved to be absolute nonsense by actually looking at transfers of these voters in ACTUAL elections.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/majority-of-middle-ground-say-ni-should-remain-as-an-integral-part-of-the-uk-poll/903311698.html

From the article "Some 57% rarely or never vote, with 38% always or sometimes voting."

So you probably can't use "transfers of these voters in ACTUAL elections."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on March 03, 2023, 11:16:08 PM
40% of everyone doesn't vote and that's on a good day. I think it's fair enough then when we are looking at non unionist non nationalists to look at the alliance and green voting patterns. If you are familiar with Jon and his polls then you know they are w**k, he often has support for UI around 30% and often when questioned admits the pro UI figure is low (so what's the point then). The problem is these figures are then used as gospel by the usual suspects. It's similar to the Nilt surveys that have SF support in the teens and UI support around 25% are used as proof that no border poll is required. Quite frankly polls like ths as much of a joke as they are are being used and manipulated and really should be vetted more. Nolan questioned the integrity of lucid talks Bill white despite their accurate correlation with election results but gives these other charlatans a bye
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on March 05, 2023, 09:56:50 AM
NI in all its glory

https://twitter.com/craigyboy321/status/1632113801439870976?s=46&t=Z3KW3Rw04beopUDsdM2Hwg
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on March 05, 2023, 02:10:12 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on March 05, 2023, 09:56:50 AM
NI in all its glory

https://twitter.com/craigyboy321/status/1632113801439870976?s=46&t=Z3KW3Rw04beopUDsdM2Hwg

This guy is actually arguing with data, which is a marked improvement on most tweets defending NI.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 31, 2023, 12:07:25 AM
Wee Seamy wants to move the goalposts in the belief that most people in the UK will want to keep NI:

Jamie Bryson: The constitutional future of Northern Ireland should be a matter for all of the UK, not just NI
A letter from Jamie Bryson:

By Letters
Published 30th May 2023, 07:02 BST- 3 min read
Updated 30th May 2023, 07:14 BST

It is undemocratic that most of the United Kingdom can't vote on its possible dissolution. Creating an unprecedented right for Scotland or Northern Ireland to secede without any say for the rest of the country was a constitutional wrong-turn

It is undemocratic that most of the United Kingdom can't vote on its possible dissolution. Creating an unprecedented right for Scotland or Northern Ireland to secede without any say for the rest of the country was a constitutional wrong-turn

There has been much talk – largely driven by elements of the media – in relation to a 'border poll' in recent weeks. As far back as the NI Constitutional Act 1973, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Framework document, there was a fundamental constitutional error at the heart of UK government policy. This error was then repeated in the Belfast Agreement, and in consequence within section 1 of the NI Act 1998 (which essentially replicates the 1973 Act).

The error was (and is) to confer upon Northern Ireland the principle of self-determination as a bespoke concept, rather than self determination being a question for the entirety of the UK's sovereign territory as a whole. In addressing the Scottish Referendum, the late Court of Appeal judge Sir John Laws said in his book 'The Constitutional Balance' that it was "...profoundly undemocratic that in 2014 only those resident in Scotland, and not the inhabitants of England, Wales or Northern Ireland, were allowed to vote on the prospective dissolution of the United Kingdom".

The UK Supreme Court considered the application of self-determination in recent the Lord Advocate's Scottish Reference, and helpfully set out the principles to be applied. In essence, there is no right to unilaterally secede, save for whereby the territory is under oppressive rule or military occupation. That, plainly, doesn't even come close to applying to Northern Ireland. A state has a right to protect its territorial integrity; there is no principle requiring a state to allow one constituent part the right to secede.

In creating an unprecedented right to secede, outside the parameters of the internationally recognised principle of self-determination, the UK government made a fundamental constitutional wrong-turn, similar to the constitutional error made in surrendering sovereignty to the European Union via the European Communities Act and associated treaties. The government were given an instruction to remedy that error via the Brexit referendum in 2016. It is obvious to point out that in relation to Northern Ireland, the instruction from the UK electorate has been ignored, with the government leaving this part of the Union subjugated under EU law via the Northern Ireland Protocol and its embedding Windsor Framework.

We forever hear nationalists lecturing all and sundry about 'constitutional conversations' and the need to engage in discussing Northern Ireland's future. Of course, what they really mean is discussing a united Ireland. The moment a unionist seeks to inject ideas into the 'conversation' as to how to strengthen the Union – such as this article, or Ian Paisley Junior's Referendum Bill – all of sudden that is heresy and is met with nationalist outrage. That neatly illuminates the deceptive nature of nationalism's honeyed language seeking to present conversations about the future as being totally benign and inclusive. It is only inclusive when it is on their terms.

Unionism ought to unashamedly begin a campaign to correct the constitutional wrong-turn on self-determination, and instead seek to build an argument for the remedying of that error by either making the future of the Union a question for the whole Union; or, alternatively by requiring a border poll to not only obtain a majority in NI and the Republic of Ireland, but also in Great Britain.

Jamie Bryson, NI Director of Policy, Centre for the Union
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on May 31, 2023, 12:10:16 AM
That could very well backfire. Throw a few stats about the cost of this place to the English and they would soon road us
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on May 31, 2023, 05:09:01 PM
Polling numbers in Britain for this sort of thing can be hard to track down, mainly because nobody gives a toss about the place and they don't even bother polling for it. But I remember a poll in the Manchester Evening News in the wake of the bomb of 1996 and it showed overwhelming support for Irish unity, it was something like 75% IIRC. The attitude was "it's nothing to do with us, we should leave them to it." One letter writer wrote "if only the Irish would fight amongst themselves and leave us alone."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mourne Red on May 31, 2023, 08:40:25 PM
Changing face of NI from the census tables released today:

0-14 age cohort
Catholic 47.36
Other Christian 23.55
Other/no reg/not stated 23.26

15-39
43.28
30.5
26.2

40-64
41.96
39.89
18.16

65+
35.54
52.82
11.56

15-20 years there'll be a UI in my opinion
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Piskin on May 31, 2023, 11:51:55 PM
Bryson is dumb as a rock if he wants the whole of the UK to vote.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 01, 2023, 12:02:28 AM
Edited for readability:


0-14 age cohort.   15-39.   40-64.    65+
Taigs.   47.36.   43.28.   41.96.   35.54
Prods.   23.55.   30.5.   39.89.   52.82
Other/no reg/not stated.   23.26.   26.2.   18.16.   11.56

Taigs and prods definitely sloping in opposite directions. Others seem to peak in the 15-39 group. The pace of change is going to accelerate as the prod over 65s die off as the young taigs reach voting age.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: An Astrail on June 01, 2023, 02:13:25 AM
Bryson is just looking to put more complexity into a border poll. So you'd have to get a majority in the 6, a majority in the 26 and a majority in Britain. At the very least it puts a whole lot more cost into it. But also if you established the principle, you could then also get the rest of the UK voting on Scottish independence to make that harder. And they know that Scottish independence - if it passed - would be a catalyst for the end of the UK.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on June 01, 2023, 02:34:21 AM
I take a English vote on a UI, they want to get rid of us. Where does, Bryson get his backroom qualifications from. He hadn't the brains to get into a real lawyer course.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on June 01, 2023, 07:56:27 AM
Does he write them articles and tweets etc. or does someone else help him?

The amount of tweets and re-tweets he puts out is shocking.  It's 7 days a week.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 01, 2023, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on June 01, 2023, 02:34:21 AM
I take a English vote on a UI, they want to get rid of us. Where does, Bryson get his backroom qualifications from. He hadn't the brains to get into a real lawyer course.

When you spend most of your life in Bangor, Newtownards, Dundonald, Donaghadee, East Belfast and the likes you're bound to get the misconception that Unionism is still in complete control.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: marty34 on June 01, 2023, 07:56:27 AM
Does he write them articles and tweets etc. or does someone else help him?

The amount of tweets and re-tweets he puts out is shocking.  It's 7 days a week.

I would say that's pretty much his profession. I would suspect this boy has backing financially.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: NAG1 on June 01, 2023, 08:58:14 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: marty34 on June 01, 2023, 07:56:27 AM
Does he write them articles and tweets etc. or does someone else help him?

The amount of tweets and re-tweets he puts out is shocking.  It's 7 days a week.

I would say that's pretty much his profession. I would suspect this boy has backing financially.

If I was backing him financially I would expecting a refund. He seems to have been on the wrong side of every debate or argument since he came to some sort of prominence.

People need to be very careful with him though, he is a complete and utter fool but he is a dangerous one. Not through his actions but those of the ones around him stupid enough to listen to his pseudo-legal ramblings.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:01:26 AM
He causes a lot of bother in the legal world. Not as big a fool as we would like to think he is.

How he's got all hit notoriety etc I do not know because he is no more than a jumped up little sc**bag but there is a lot more than meets the eye as to what is going on with this guy being in the limelight I would say.

Also anyone's life will be much healthier if they use twitter and they block him.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on June 01, 2023, 09:05:16 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:01:26 AM
He causes a lot of bother in the legal world. Not as big a fool as we would like to think he is.

How he's got all hit notoriety etc I do not know because he is no more than a jumped up little sc**bag but there is a lot more than meets the eye as to what is going on with this guy being in the limelight I would say.

Also anyone's life will be much healthier if they use twitter and they block him.

His platform is entirely thanks to Stephen Nolan. Can you think of a single other broadcaster that gives him the time of day?

And yep...Block Bryson on twitter and boycott Stephen Nolan's sectarian cesspit of a show and your life will improve in an instant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on June 01, 2023, 09:11:12 AM
Bryson, Nesbitt, Paisley, Foster, Alderdice. They'll all talking about a Unity Ref and they are all worried.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:14:51 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on June 01, 2023, 09:05:16 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:01:26 AM
He causes a lot of bother in the legal world. Not as big a fool as we would like to think he is.

How he's got all hit notoriety etc I do not know because he is no more than a jumped up little sc**bag but there is a lot more than meets the eye as to what is going on with this guy being in the limelight I would say.

Also anyone's life will be much healthier if they use twitter and they block him.

His platform is entirely tha lnks to Stephen Nolan. Can you think of a single other broadcaster that gives him the time of day?

And yep...Block Bryson on twitter and boycott Stephen Nolan's sectarian cesspit of a show and your life will improve in an instant.

He had to get the link to Nolan in the first place though. How did a wee spide from Donaghadee do that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on June 01, 2023, 09:18:06 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:14:51 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on June 01, 2023, 09:05:16 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:01:26 AM
He causes a lot of bother in the legal world. Not as big a fool as we would like to think he is.

How he's got all hit notoriety etc I do not know because he is no more than a jumped up little sc**bag but there is a lot more than meets the eye as to what is going on with this guy being in the limelight I would say.

Also anyone's life will be much healthier if they use twitter and they block him.

His platform is entirely tha lnks to Stephen Nolan. Can you think of a single other broadcaster that gives him the time of day?

And yep...Block Bryson on twitter and boycott Stephen Nolan's sectarian cesspit of a show and your life will improve in an instant.

He had to get the link to Nolan in the first place though. How did a wee spide from Donaghadee do that?

Ironically the only conspiracy links that have been proved is between him and SF!

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/jamie-bryson-and-ex-sinn-fein-mla-daithi-mckay-lose-battle-to-halt-prosecution-over-stormont-inquiry-conspiracy/41091849.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/jamie-bryson-and-ex-sinn-fein-mla-daithi-mckay-lose-battle-to-halt-prosecution-over-stormont-inquiry-conspiracy/41091849.html)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 01, 2023, 09:32:17 AM
Quote from: trailer on June 01, 2023, 09:11:12 AM
Bryson, Nesbitt, Paisley, Foster, Alderdice. They'll all talking about a Unity Ref and they are all worried.

Wait till you hear Bin Lorry of the Newsletter almost in tears, pleading for help from the UK Gov and anyone else who'll listen about the plight Unionism finds itself in.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mourne Red on June 01, 2023, 09:35:08 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:14:51 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on June 01, 2023, 09:05:16 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:01:26 AM
He causes a lot of bother in the legal world. Not as big a fool as we would like to think he is.

How he's got all hit notoriety etc I do not know because he is no more than a jumped up little sc**bag but there is a lot more than meets the eye as to what is going on with this guy being in the limelight I would say.

Also anyone's life will be much healthier if they use twitter and they block him.

His platform is entirely tha lnks to Stephen Nolan. Can you think of a single other broadcaster that gives him the time of day?

And yep...Block Bryson on twitter and boycott Stephen Nolan's sectarian cesspit of a show and your life will improve in an instant.

He had to get the link to Nolan in the first place though. How did a wee spide from Donaghadee do that?

Maybe he frequents the Kremlin and spotted him there
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 01, 2023, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 01, 2023, 09:32:17 AM
Quote from: trailer on June 01, 2023, 09:11:12 AM
Bryson, Nesbitt, Paisley, Foster, Alderdice. They'll all talking about a Unity Ref and they are all worried.

Wait till you hear Bin Lorry of the Newsletter almost in tears, pleading for help from the UK Gov and anyone else who'll listen about the plight Unionism finds itself in.

Listened back to that Ben Lowry interview and it really was something else, he sounded as if he needed a good cold shower after it. It's well worth a listen just to hear what the editor of the main Unionist media outlet actually thinks about things. He is totally consumed by the Union at the expense of everything else and it does reflect a lot of unionist thinking and more particularly that older generation.

If political unionism continues on its current course of action then I think a border poll will be much quicker to take place than we imagine and most likely within 5-10 years. By denying Irish language rights, batting for the hardest form of Brexit, denying a nationalist first minister, cosying up to ERG Tories for political titles etc etc they have simply mobilised nationalists. Then lundifying anybody from their own side who shows the slightest form of compromise or long term strategic thinking. If they actually tried to be more reasonable they could probably prolong their precious Union for a generation but I just don't don't think its in them as they try and outdo each other in a contest to see who can be the ultra superbrit. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 10:02:50 AM
It's just continuous political suicide. You can only imagine their conversations... how will we preserve the union? Ah we'll bring down stormont and make the whole place not work at all. That'll show them.

Genius  :o
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mario on June 01, 2023, 10:18:09 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 10:02:50 AM
It's just continuous political suicide. You can only imagine their conversations... how will we preserve the union? Ah we'll bring down stormont and make the whole place not work at all. That'll show them.

Genius  :o
I think most Unionist politicians are just in it for the career. They probably know it's a flawed tactic but all they care about is the next election and getting a job for another few years. They've now back themselves into a corner where they need to double down or they will lose votes at the next election.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on June 01, 2023, 10:59:40 AM
Quote from: Mario on June 01, 2023, 10:18:09 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 10:02:50 AM
It's just continuous political suicide. You can only imagine their conversations... how will we preserve the union? Ah we'll bring down stormont and make the whole place not work at all. That'll show them.
[
Genius  :o
I think most Unionist politicians are just in it for the career. They probably know it's a flawed tactic but all they care about is the next election and getting a job for another few years. They've now back themselves into a corner where they need to double down or they will lose votes at the next election.

Yeah it's just a case of not on my watch. They know you can't keep the taigs tide out. They don't want to be at the helm when the union goes down. So just trying to squeeze a bit more out of their base while they can.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on June 01, 2023, 11:01:09 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on June 01, 2023, 10:59:40 AM
Quote from: Mario on June 01, 2023, 10:18:09 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 10:02:50 AM
It's just continuous political suicide. You can only imagine their conversations... how will we preserve the union? Ah we'll bring down stormont and make the whole place not work at all. That'll show them.
[
Genius  :o
I think most Unionist politicians are just in it for the career. They probably know it's a flawed tactic but all they care about is the next election and getting a job for another few years. They've now back themselves into a corner where they need to double down or they will lose votes at the next election.

Yeah it's just a case of not on my watch. They know you can't keep the taigs tide out. They don't want to be at the helm when the union goes down. So just trying to squeeze a bit more out of their base while they can.

History won't be kind to Foster. She'll go down as the worst leader of Unionism ever and will be viewed as the Leader who was at the helm at the beginning of the end.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Feckitt on June 01, 2023, 11:27:11 AM
Brexit was a game changer in the drive for Irish Unity, but I still think that the day Arlene unleashed the crocodile was equally significant.  Equality is easy, all you need is a bit of generosity, an ounce of decency, and a wit of common sense.  Arlene has none of the above, an intelligent person who is blinded by bigotry.

Viva la Cocodrilo
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on June 01, 2023, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: marty34 on June 01, 2023, 07:56:27 AM
Does he write them articles and tweets etc. or does someone else help him?

The amount of tweets and re-tweets he puts out is shocking.  It's 7 days a week.

I would say that's pretty much his profession. I would suspect this boy has backing financially.
Is he not spokesperson for the UDA and their conduit to the DUP. He was nominally a "despatcher" for a cab company with questionable ownership!
I would also think he is a conduit for Jim Allister to float his most tenuous legal ramblings.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on June 01, 2023, 03:15:24 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 01, 2023, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 01, 2023, 09:32:17 AM
Quote from: trailer on June 01, 2023, 09:11:12 AM
Bryson, Nesbitt, Paisley, Foster, Alderdice. They'll all talking about a Unity Ref and they are all worried.

Wait till you hear Bin Lorry of the Newsletter almost in tears, pleading for help from the UK Gov and anyone else who'll listen about the plight Unionism finds itself in.

Listened back to that Ben Lowry interview and it really was something else, he sounded as if he needed a good cold shower after it. It's well worth a listen just to hear what the editor of the main Unionist media outlet actually thinks about things. He is totally consumed by the Union at the expense of everything else and it does reflect a lot of unionist thinking and more particularly that older generation.

If political unionism continues on its current course of action then I think a border poll will be much quicker to take place than we imagine and most likely within 5-10 years. By denying Irish language rights, batting for the hardest form of Brexit, denying a nationalist first minister, cosying up to ERG Tories for political titles etc etc they have simply mobilised nationalists. Then lundifying anybody from their own side who shows the slightest form of compromise or long term strategic thinking. If they actually tried to be more reasonable they could probably prolong their precious Union for a generation but I just don't don't think its in them as they try and outdo each other in a contest to see who can be the ultra superbrit.

Lowry on BBC and Lowry on RTE are different people.  He rants and raves like a bigoted lunatic north of the border, yet, when on RTE, he's as good as gold and much more tempered in his outlook.  Either way, the northern Lowry is most likely the real one, and he knows the union is in terminal decline.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 01, 2023, 04:05:59 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on June 01, 2023, 03:15:24 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 01, 2023, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 01, 2023, 09:32:17 AM
Quote from: trailer on June 01, 2023, 09:11:12 AM
Bryson, Nesbitt, Paisley, Foster, Alderdice. They'll all talking about a Unity Ref and they are all worried.

Wait till you hear Bin Lorry of the Newsletter almost in tears, pleading for help from the UK Gov and anyone else who'll listen about the plight Unionism finds itself in.

Listened back to that Ben Lowry interview and it really was something else, he sounded as if he needed a good cold shower after it. It's well worth a listen just to hear what the editor of the main Unionist media outlet actually thinks about things. He is totally consumed by the Union at the expense of everything else and it does reflect a lot of unionist thinking and more particularly that older generation.

If political unionism continues on its current course of action then I think a border poll will be much quicker to take place than we imagine and most likely within 5-10 years. By denying Irish language rights, batting for the hardest form of Brexit, denying a nationalist first minister, cosying up to ERG Tories for political titles etc etc they have simply mobilised nationalists. Then lundifying anybody from their own side who shows the slightest form of compromise or long term strategic thinking. If they actually tried to be more reasonable they could probably prolong their precious Union for a generation but I just don't don't think its in them as they try and outdo each other in a contest to see who can be the ultra superbrit.

Lowry on BBC and Lowry on RTE are different people.  He rants and raves like a bigoted lunatic north of the border, yet, when on RTE, he's as good as gold and much more tempered in his outlook.  Either way, the northern Lowry is most likely the real one, and he knows the union is in terminal decline.

He knows his audience. The Newsletter has descended into an extreme unionist/loyalist propaganda media outlet since he became editor in 2021 which tells you a lot about his thinking. He sometimes tries to present a moderate viewpoint but yesterday he just completely lost the run of himself. And it was wasn't that Nolan was even grilling him in any shape or form, he just went off on a few different tangents and said everything that he wanted to get off his chest.

I don't know where it comes from but he is among the most bitter, anti Irish of them all and yesterdays meltdown was something else.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 01, 2023, 04:07:22 PM
Between Bin Lorry and Binlid an awful lot of rubbish round Unionism
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 01, 2023, 04:28:21 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 01, 2023, 07:56:27 AM
Does he write them articles and tweets etc. or does someone else help him?

The amount of tweets and re-tweets he puts out is shocking.  It's 7 days a week.

Yup, he's basically a full-time comments troll. Nice work if you can get it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 01, 2023, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on June 01, 2023, 09:05:16 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:01:26 AM
He causes a lot of bother in the legal world. Not as big a fool as we would like to think he is.

How he's got all hit notoriety etc I do not know because he is no more than a jumped up little sc**bag but there is a lot more than meets the eye as to what is going on with this guy being in the limelight I would say.

Also anyone's life will be much healthier if they use twitter and they block him.

His platform is entirely thanks to Stephen Nolan. Can you think of a single other broadcaster that gives him the time of day?

And yep...Block Bryson on twitter and boycott Stephen Nolan's sectarian cesspit of a show and your life will improve in an instant.

Bit harsh on Nolan. I've listened to his show and it's not as bad as people say it is. Bryson and Allister aren't on every day like people think. Since it's a new month I might do another survey by listening each day and making a note of the contributors. Last time I did that I found Bryson and Allister were on about two to three times a month each.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 01, 2023, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 01, 2023, 09:32:17 AM
Quote from: trailer on June 01, 2023, 09:11:12 AM
Bryson, Nesbitt, Paisley, Foster, Alderdice. They'll all talking about a Unity Ref and they are all worried.

Wait till you hear Bin Lorry of the Newsletter almost in tears, pleading for help from the UK Gov and anyone else who'll listen about the plight Unionism finds itself in.

That man has anger management issues. I've heard him on the radio and he sounds like your man Steve Fleming from The Thick of It, like he's about to go off on a tantrum any second.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on June 01, 2023, 05:05:12 PM
When was Lowry on Nolan?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 01, 2023, 05:34:03 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 01, 2023, 04:07:22 PM
Between Bin Lorry and Binlid an awful lot of rubbish round Unionism

Was it ever  any  other way?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 01, 2023, 05:41:53 PM
Quote from: trailer on June 01, 2023, 11:01:09 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on June 01, 2023, 10:59:40 AM
Quote from: Mario on June 01, 2023, 10:18:09 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 10:02:50 AM
It's just continuous political suicide. You can only imagine their conversations... how will we preserve the union? Ah we'll bring down stormont and make the whole place not work at all. That'll show them.
[
Genius  :o
I think most Unionist politicians are just in it for the career. They probably know it's a flawed tactic but all they care about is the next election and getting a job for another few years. They've now back themselves into a corner where they need to double down or they will lose votes at the next election.

Yeah it's just a case of not on my watch. They know you can't keep the taigs tide out. They don't want to be at the helm when the union goes down. So just trying to squeeze a bit more out of their base while they can.

History won't be kind to Foster. She'll go down as the worst leader of Unionism ever and will be viewed as the Leader who was at the helm at the beginning of the end.

Yes , but she won't  be the  one holding the  reins  when  NI goes.  So, she won't be  the one on the  bonfire for  generations to come , so that's all  that matters  to her (or  indeed , any  leader of unionism)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eire90 on June 01, 2023, 06:41:17 PM
why would loyalists sit back and accecpt joint rule if no one voted for that and dont pay tax to the south
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on June 01, 2023, 05:41:53 PM
Quote from: trailer on June 01, 2023, 11:01:09 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on June 01, 2023, 10:59:40 AM
Quote from: Mario on June 01, 2023, 10:18:09 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 10:02:50 AM
It's just continuous political suicide. You can only imagine their conversations... how will we preserve the union? Ah we'll bring down stormont and make the whole place not work at all. That'll show them.
[
Genius  :o
I think most Unionist politicians are just in it for the career. They probably know it's a flawed tactic but all they care about is the next election and getting a job for another few years. They've now back themselves into a corner where they need to double down or they will lose votes at the next election.

Yeah it's just a case of not on my watch. They know you can't keep the taigs tide out. They don't want to be at the helm when the union goes down. So just trying to squeeze a bit more out of their base while they can.

History won't be kind to Foster. She'll go down as the worst leader of Unionism ever and will be viewed as the Leader who was at the helm at the beginning of the end.

Yes , but she won't  be the  one holding the  reins  when  NI goes.  So, she won't be  the one on the  bonfire for  generations to come , so that's all  that matters  to her (or  indeed , any  leader of unionism)

As bad as she was Donaldson is worse.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 01, 2023, 07:53:58 PM
Quote from: Eire90 on June 01, 2023, 06:41:17 PM
why would loyalists sit back and accecpt joint rule if no one voted for that and dont pay tax to the south

Same reason they're sitting back and accepting a stalled Stormont and Brexit even though nobody voted for either.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on June 01, 2023, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 01, 2023, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on June 01, 2023, 09:05:16 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 01, 2023, 09:01:26 AM
He causes a lot of bother in the legal world. Not as big a fool as we would like to think he is.

How he's got all hit notoriety etc I do not know because he is no more than a jumped up little sc**bag but there is a lot more than meets the eye as to what is going on with this guy being in the limelight I would say.

Also anyone's life will be much healthier if they use twitter and they block him.

His platform is entirely thanks to Stephen Nolan. Can you think of a single other broadcaster that gives him the time of day?

And yep...Block Bryson on twitter and boycott Stephen Nolan's sectarian cesspit of a show and your life will improve in an instant.

Bit harsh on Nolan. I've listened to his show and it's not as bad as people say it is. Bryson and Allister aren't on every day like people think. Since it's a new month I might do another survey by listening each day and making a note of the contributors. Last time I did that I found Bryson and Allister were on about two to three times a month each.

Funny enough, it's only a few months since someone did gather the stats on Nolan's sectarian output. I discussed them here recently. Read them and then try telling me that I'm being unfair on him:

Quote from: Snapchap on March 02, 2023, 10:13:25 AM
At a rough count, and taking into account that PBP are designated as 'other' in the assembly, then you're looking at a breakdown of the most frequent guests being roughly:

Unionists: 22
Nationalists: 6 (3 of which are Alison Morris who is a journalist for a Unionist Newspaper)
Other: 4
With the most frequent participant being the leader and sole MLA of the smallest party in the assembly and most hardline unionist, Jim Allister.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpvX_sFWIAAfYwF.jpg)

Another breakdown was provided for all guests in the same timeframe (below)
The breakdown for it?
Unionists: 43
Other: 23
Nationalists: 13
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpvtT6AWAAUbo4l?format=jpg&name=large)

I also noted previously that when the DUP were on the verge of agreeing a deal on an Irish Language Act and the reinstatement of the Assembly back in the first week of Feb 2018, the Nolan show went into overdrive attacking them, and brought in Jim Allister as a guest to tear into them on his radio/tv shows on the 9th, 11th, 12th, on BOTH his radio and TV shows on 14th, on 15th and the 19th. And what happened? The DUP buckled and reneged on the deal.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 05, 2023, 11:08:49 PM
A view from stormont having the chat about this.. interesting
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 06, 2023, 08:08:07 AM
Peter Weir still telling us that being part of the UK is great as we're part of the 5th (thought it was 6th now) largest economy and the NHS is free at the point of need.

Someone better tell him that being part of the EU would give us unfettered access to the 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th and many more economies part of the EU trading block.

As for the NHS, their Tory mates have run it down so far that actually getting an appointment with a GP is a week plus more wait in most surgeries and the waiting times for non essential surgeries is now being measured in years, not weeks or months.
Want anything like a decent healthcare service in the north and you're forced to go private. 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 06, 2023, 08:12:27 AM
Someone was telling me there that the waiting list for knee replacements is seven years. The Belfast telegraph has started doing a bit on the state of the nhs here - it is a massive reason why people should want a Ui not why they shouldn't.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 09:08:03 AM
I went to bed after the first break, there's only so much shite talk I can take, but the unionist commentators were lambasting the housing the cost of living the rising numbers of homeless people and the amount of tax people pay and that the nitty gritty of selling the UI would be very difficult
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 06, 2023, 09:12:11 AM
Must be great to live in the 6 Cos....
Loads of houses, no homelessness, no cost of living increases, no taxes.....
I'm packing the van this evening....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 09:36:49 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 06, 2023, 09:12:11 AM
Must be great to live in the 6 Cos....
Loads of houses, no homelessness, no cost of living increases, no taxes.....
I'm packing the van this evening....

This will be the mis information that's given, it'll be a dirty campaign, that's for sure
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clarshack on June 06, 2023, 09:56:51 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 06, 2023, 08:12:27 AM
Someone was telling me there that the waiting list for knee replacements is seven years. The Belfast telegraph has started doing a bit on the state of the nhs here - it is a massive reason why people should want a Ui not why they shouldn't.

it's 2-3 months wait to get a surgery done private atm here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 06, 2023, 09:57:08 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 06, 2023, 09:12:11 AM
Must be great to live in the 6 Cos....
Loads of houses, no homelessness, no cost of living increases, no taxes.....
I'm packing the van this evening....

Big House Unionism has been living off the lie to working class protestants that as much as their lives aren't great, it's better than those papishes over there.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 06, 2023, 10:25:49 AM
Been hearing a lot lately  about the need to prepare for  a United ireland,  discuss how that will look  like, and  how  we can accommodate a million  unionists etc .

Let's face it , any planning/discussion  won't involve unionist politicians .  And  how  do you accommodate or  know what a million unionists  want or need ,  if  they're not at the table

I get that  if unionists  did start  talking ,  then they'd be admitting  that a United ireland is  on the cards , and that's  not what they're about.

So, if a United ireland  is looking a formality, just plough on  without them.  While the loose ends are being tied up they'll still be  shouting no surrender  as the  NI   ship goes under.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 10:37:10 AM
SF have pushed it out for at least 10 years, by the very name of being called a unionist they'll hardly even give it any thought and will only be looking at creating a better union, not working out well for them at the minute.

Though dragging 1 million people into something they aint interested in will be problematic, this wasn't discussed 100 years ago when the shoe was on the other foot but seems to be an issue now lol

The only way to accommodate the unionist is to still allow them the be unionist, having a period of self governance a certain degree of nothing changing while blending in a new Ireland.

Forcing it will only end in disaster
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 06, 2023, 10:45:34 AM
No matter what though, assuming it happens, it will be forced on some people while you would get some accepting and some would just move I suspect.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 10:50:57 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 06, 2023, 10:45:34 AM
No matter what though, assuming it happens, it will be forced on some people while you would get some accepting and some would just move I suspect.

How many Nationalist moved 100 years ago? Are there figures for that?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 11:05:53 AM
Please let this be the last time I ever hear the term '1 Million Unionists'

In the election last month 286,058 people came out to vote for Unionist parties.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 11:19:00 AM
Quote from: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 11:05:53 AM
Please let this be the last time I ever hear the term '1 Million Unionists'

In the election last month 286,058 people came out to vote for Unionist parties.

How many nationalist came out to vote?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 11:35:10 AM
Unionists 286,058

Nationalists 311,444

Others 113,617

In addition there were 34,396 votes for Independent Candidates, there were definitely more votes for Independent Nationalists than Independent Unionists, but not overwhelmingly so.  There was a very small number of votes for Independent Others.

No matter what way you swing it, '1 Million Unionists' is a fantasy, this is not 1921
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 06, 2023, 11:37:57 AM
What percentage of the c.1.8m were from a Unionist/Protestant background in the last Census?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on June 06, 2023, 11:44:21 AM
43.5% of 1.9 million so just over 800,000. Not all are of voting age.

Numbers voting for who organises bin collections does not correlate with numbers that would vote in a referendum.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 06, 2023, 11:51:11 AM
True.
Well short of a "million" though.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 12:15:39 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 06, 2023, 11:44:21 AM
43.5% of 1.9 million so just over 800,000. Not all are of voting age.

Numbers voting for who organises bin collections does not correlate with numbers that would vote in a referendum.

On a referendum vote would they bring it down to over 16's to vote?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 06, 2023, 12:24:47 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 12:15:39 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 06, 2023, 11:44:21 AM
43.5% of 1.9 million so just over 800,000. Not all are of voting age.

Numbers voting for who organises bin collections does not correlate with numbers that would vote in a referendum.

On a referendum vote would they bring it down to over 16's to vote?

Unionism would fight that tooth and nail going by the recent census figures;

0-14 age cohort  %
Catholic 47.36
Other Christian 23.55
Other/no reg/not stated 23.26

15-39
Catholic 43.28
Other Christian 30.5
Other/no reg/not stated 26.2

40-64
Catholic 41.96
Other Christian 39.89
Other/no reg/not stated 18.16

65+
Catholic 35.54
Other Christian 52.82
Other/no reg/not stated 11.56
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 12:51:56 PM
Check out the fascinating demographic blog by Faha & Bangordub https://bangordub.wordpress.com/

On the latest post they dissect the latest religious figures.  Interesting how every Tom, Dick and Harry are lumped into the Protestant/Other Christian pile.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 12:57:31 PM
Nationalists outpolled Unionists by a not insignificant margin at the last election.  Unionists will never outpoll Nationalists at any election ever again, including the Unity Referendum, no matter how quickly it happens.

Also, the census results are already 2 years out of date, and the gap will have increased since then.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: NAG1 on June 06, 2023, 01:29:40 PM
Quote from: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 12:57:31 PM
Nationalists outpolled Unionists by a not insignificant margin at the last election.  Unionists will never outpoll Nationalists at any election ever again, including the Unity Referendum, no matter how quickly it happens.

Also, the census results are already 2 years out of date, and the gap will have increased since then.

It will not be Nationalists or Unionists who decided the outcome of any Referendum, it will be those in the middle that affiliate increasingly with neither.

The problem for Unionists in this group is that the longer they make this place unworkable and people can see the benefits they once enjoyed fading away, the more likely they are to vote for change. If they made this place a success the would be no clamour for change from this key demographic.

The job for Nationalists is to demonstrate the practical implications of a UI and the benefits that this can bring and to sell this to the middle 'neither' demographic.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Pub Bore on June 06, 2023, 01:43:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 09:08:03 AM
I went to bed after the first break, there's only so much shite talk I can take, but the unionist commentators were lambasting the housing the cost of living the rising numbers of homeless people and the amount of tax people pay and that the nitty gritty of selling the UI would be very difficult

I didn't see the programme, yer man Clark makes me ill.  But people can either say "Why is a pint so dear in Dublin?" or "Why are my wages so low?".  Too many Unionists wear being poorer and less productive as a badge of pride.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 06, 2023, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 12:57:31 PM
Nationalists outpolled Unionists by a not insignificant margin at the last election.  Unionists will never outpoll Nationalists at any election ever again, including the Unity Referendum, no matter how quickly it happens.

Also, the census results are already 2 years out of date, and the gap will have increased since then.

Coming  soon.... Plantation II

And , sure when  that bridge to Scotland is build,  the planters can  drive over.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 06, 2023, 03:05:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 09:36:49 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 06, 2023, 09:12:11 AM
Must be great to live in the 6 Cos....
Loads of houses, no homelessness, no cost of living increases, no taxes.....
I'm packing the van this evening....

This will be the mis information that's given, it'll be a dirty campaign, that's for sure

Its already started, the amount of nonsense going around is unreal and unfortunately the media are not challenging the mis information

I wrote this for somewhere else but I cant seem to post it so ill have to bore all you guys with it

Demographic change is happening, just at a snails pace but that might be about to change as we near a potential tipping point. I think the shift has been masked over the last 20 yrs by previous poor nationalist turnout and also the increasing greening of the Alliance party.
The lack of understanding from Unionist politicians and commentators is incredible. Every excuse under the sun is being used for the poor performance at the council elections other than the reality that slowly, slowly the unionist numbers are falling and are just not there anymore but these excuses are also going to be used to block a border poll.

I'll make a list of the claims.

1. The nationalist vote has been the same for 25 yrs.

This actually is partially true. It has been stuck around the low forties. It is worth noting that at the council election when ALL nationalist parties and independents are included it was actually over 44%. Most people seem to quote just the combined SF and SDLP vote and conveniently miss out Aontu, nationalist independents and of course PBP who like to spoof that they are others. Big Ian jnr of course has to go the extra mile and was on the radio the other day saying that 70% are against a UI, he could only be bothered counting SF. Interesting that often conveniently left out of this analysis is that over the same 25 years the unionist vote has gone down over 15%.

2. Differential voter turnout

I think certain unionist areas did have a poor turnout but the impact is overestimated. You only have to look at how competitive unionism still is in places like FST to realise that when needed the vote still comes out. That seat should have been a safe SF seat now for several westminster elections but it is still only won by a handful of votes and Tom Elliot even won it as recently as 2015.

3. Too many unionist parties causing vote shredding

A ridiculous claim in a STV election. If anything more parties are likely to get a wider range of unionists out to vote. Unionists actually won more seats/votes than nationalists at the council elections torpedoing this DUP arguement. Yet no commentator questioned it

4. Alliance voters will back the union at any referendum.

The truth is we don't know how people will vote on a referendum but to blanket claim all Alliance voters and others such as greens as being automatically pro-union is quite frankly ridiculous especially considering the transfers when analysed go heavily in favour to nationalist parties!! Also strange that one minute they are part of the pan-nationalist front next minute they are all unionist because they only get votes in Unionist constituencies lol.
It was a worrying development on ITV's view from stormont when Peter Shirlow just slipped in under his breath that there will be no border poll because of the Alliance party as nationalists will never reach 50%+1. This is a ridiculous statement and all the more dramatic as it is from a so called academic as he just automatically assumed non nationalist means unionist, and why should Shirlows' opinion matter, well the guy is heavily involved with Liverpool university polling, polls that along with others will be used to influence SoS whether a referendum is needed or not

Dodgy polling

I already mentioned the Liverpool poll which suddenly doesn't seem so 'neutral'. The fact that it uses face to face polling should be enough for you to ignore it. When do you go and vote in an election and have to tell someone who you voted for. Why would you create a poll that doesn't reflect reality. People in general can be shy to disclose who they vote for, throw in the fact that not long ago in Northern Ireland it could cost you your life it should then come as no surprise that people are not fully honest with pollsters. Jon tonge after one of his polls commissioned for the BBC after going through all the stats then mentioned that the UI figure was probably on the low side. If that's the case then why bother in the first place. Just to confirm how useless face to face polling are, NILT have released there annual joke, their party support stats are so far away from any actual election ever with Alliance on 37% it makes you wonder why. Yet these polls Unionists swear by them and take them over actual election results. It's bizarre beyond belief. Interesting lucid talk is an anonymous online poll and has the most accurate predictions for election results. lucid talk would often have the UI/UK poll quite close unlike the others and as if by coincidence Bill White was recently targeted by the media questioning his sampling and methodology and accuracy yet the others with all their obvious flaws get a free pass!!

Census

So the census showed Catholics now outnumber protestants. This if course can be explained by Ben Lowry and co that it is only happening because Protestants have become more secular. He ignores the fact that on the census you can tick atheist, agnostic etc but you still then tick the community background question. Ben seems to think tens of thousands of lapsed protestants are all filling their census forms incorrectly and not disclosing their actual background. That's some assumption.

The desperation and denial will continue following further elections. The numbers are probably already there for a referendum and certainly will be when a referendum actually happens in 5-10 yrs. Unfortunately I have a feeling Northern nationalist will be like the Scots and fear change listen too much to the guff about NHS being great and not having to pay for a Dr' s appt and not actually look at the reality that the ROI has better education, a better health service, better benefits and you will actually live longer yet some will listen just to the meaningless sound bites. I would expect the UK government and NI media not to be neutral and I fully expect the Irish government to only be half arsed when it comes to the campaign.

These factors could have enough nationalists backing remain or not even coming out to vote!!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on June 07, 2023, 07:57:33 PM
It really is quite sikening to hear the DUP, FF, Alliance and UU chastise SF for attending a commemoration.

Yes the same angels expect nationalists to enjoy the Twelfth "celebrations".

Finally, and to rub noses in it further, Micheál Martin visits the home of the Orange Order today.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on June 07, 2023, 08:36:05 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 07, 2023, 07:57:33 PM
It really is quite sikening to hear the DUP, FF, Alliance and UU chastise SF for attending a commemoration.

Yes the same angels expect nationalists to enjoy the Twelfth "celebrations".

Finally, and to rub noses in it further, Micheál Martin visits the home of the Orange Order today.

Not only that but there's some remembering the terrorists of the BA etc. every November.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 07, 2023, 07:57:33 PM
It really is quite sikening to hear the DUP, FF, Alliance and UU chastise SF for attending a commemoration.

Yes the same angels expect nationalists to enjoy the Twelfth "celebrations".

Finally, and to rub noses in it further, Micheál Martin visits the home of the Orange Order today.

I don't know what Martin and FF and FG think they are at when then are kow towing to an organisation in a months time will gleefully burn the flag of the country they swear to serve

I'm far from a SF voter but the reality is that instead of Official Ireland licking these f**kers holes and they seeing it as a sign of weakness on the part of the south

We should be a damn sight more robust in our dealings with all shades of unionism
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 07, 2023, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 07, 2023, 07:57:33 PM
It really is quite sikening to hear the DUP, FF, Alliance and UU chastise SF for attending a commemoration.

Yes the same angels expect nationalists to enjoy the Twelfth "celebrations".

Finally, and to rub noses in it further, Micheál Martin visits the home of the Orange Order today.

I don't know what Martin and FF and FG think they are at when then are kow towing to an organisation in a months time will gleefully burn the flag of the country they swear to serve

I'm far from a SF voter but the reality is that instead of Official Ireland licking these f**kers holes and they seeing it as a sign of weakness on the part of the south

We should be a damn sight more robust in our dealings with all shades of unionism

Everything they do is  all  about keeping  SF out , and  them keeping their cushy  positions .  Attack SF  at every opportunity . ,  They're worse vthan the DUP in that  regard
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 07, 2023, 10:31:07 PM
That's exactly it. The OO or DUP have never made any "concessions " for nationalists ever and nor are they likely to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on June 07, 2023, 10:31:29 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on June 07, 2023, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 07, 2023, 07:57:33 PM
It really is quite sikening to hear the DUP, FF, Alliance and UU chastise SF for attending a commemoration.

Yes the same angels expect nationalists to enjoy the Twelfth "celebrations".

Finally, and to rub noses in it further, Micheál Martin visits the home of the Orange Order today.

I don't know what Martin and FF and FG think they are at when then are kow towing to an organisation in a months time will gleefully burn the flag of the country they swear to serve

I'm far from a SF voter but the reality is that instead of Official Ireland licking these f**kers holes and they seeing it as a sign of weakness on the part of the south

We should be a damn sight more robust in our dealings with all shades of unionism

Everything they do is  all  about keeping  SF out , and  them keeping their cushy  positions .  Attack SF  at every opportunity . ,  They're worse vthan the DUP in that  regard

In fairness, it's great.  Works the other way.

People can see right through the hypocrisy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: burdizzo on June 07, 2023, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on June 06, 2023, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 12:57:31 PM
Nationalists outpolled Unionists by a not insignificant margin at the last election.  Unionists will never outpoll Nationalists at any election ever again, including the Unity Referendum, no matter how quickly it happens.

Also, the census results are already 2 years out of date, and the gap will have increased since then.

Coming  soon.... Plantation II


Humph. It's happening already.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:45:59 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on June 07, 2023, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 07, 2023, 07:57:33 PM
It really is quite sikening to hear the DUP, FF, Alliance and UU chastise SF for attending a commemoration.

Yes the same angels expect nationalists to enjoy the Twelfth "celebrations".

Finally, and to rub noses in it further, Micheál Martin visits the home of the Orange Order today.

I don't know what Martin and FF and FG think they are at when then are kow towing to an organisation in a months time will gleefully burn the flag of the country they swear to serve

I'm far from a SF voter but the reality is that instead of Official Ireland licking these f**kers holes and they seeing it as a sign of weakness on the part of the south

We should be a damn sight more robust in our dealings with all shades of unionism

Everything they do is  all  about keeping  SF out , and  them keeping their cushy  positions .  Attack SF  at every opportunity . ,  They're worse vthan the DUP in that  regard

I don't know if Politicians coming from the Republic and "reaching out " to the likes of the Orange Order is much to do with attacking SF

It's more to do with a misguided and long held belief in the south amongst Official Ireland that if we are nice to Unionists they will suddenly morph into advocates for a United Ireland

This has continually proved to be wrong and every attempt has been thrown back in our faces

You only have to look at Brexit and the likes of the DUP seeking to do economic harm to the Republic

A United Ireland vote in NI will be won by appealing to the middle ground

Expecting one unionist to vote for it is harmless in the extreme

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on June 08, 2023, 12:25:04 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:45:59 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on June 07, 2023, 10:21:00 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 07, 2023, 07:57:33 PM
It really is quite sikening to hear the DUP, FF, Alliance and UU chastise SF for attending a commemoration.

Yes the same angels expect nationalists to enjoy the Twelfth "celebrations".

Finally, and to rub noses in it further, Micheál Martin visits the home of the Orange Order today.

I don't know what Martin and FF and FG think they are at when then are kow towing to an organisation in a months time will gleefully burn the flag of the country they swear to serve

I'm far from a SF voter but the reality is that instead of Official Ireland licking these f**kers holes and they seeing it as a sign of weakness on the part of the south

We should be a damn sight more robust in our dealings with all shades of unionism

Everything they do is  all  about keeping  SF out , and  them keeping their cushy  positions .  Attack SF  at every opportunity . ,  They're worse vthan the DUP in that  regard

I don't know if Politicians coming from the Republic and "reaching out " to the likes of the Orange Order is much to do with attacking SF

It's more to do with a misguided and long held belief in the south amongst Official Ireland that if we are nice to Unionists they will suddenly morph into advocates for a United Ireland

This has continually proved to be wrong and every attempt has been thrown back in our faces

You only have to look at Brexit and the likes of the DUP seeking to do economic harm to the Republic

A United Ireland vote in NI will be won by appealing to the middle ground

Expecting one unionist to vote for it is harmless in the extreme

Not sure why people think that FFG should be convincing the bigots of the OO to be advocates for a re-united Ireland, when FFG themselves are not even advocates for a re-united Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 08, 2023, 10:18:50 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:45:59 PM
I don't know if Politicians coming from the Republic and "reaching out " to the likes of the Orange Order is much to do with attacking SF

It's more to do with a misguided and long held belief in the south amongst Official Ireland that if we are nice to Unionists they will suddenly morph into advocates for a United Ireland

This has continually proved to be wrong and every attempt has been thrown back in our faces

You only have to look at Brexit and the likes of the DUP seeking to do economic harm to the Republic

A United Ireland vote in NI will be won by appealing to the middle ground

Expecting one unionist to vote for it is harmless in the extreme

However, one part of convincing the middle ground is that they need to see that some effort was made to reach out to unionists. If the unionists spurn those efforts, as they almost inevitably will, it will still show the difference between the political culture. Also 10% of people from a unionist background will respond to these efforts and this too will help.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 08, 2023, 10:37:20 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 06, 2023, 10:37:10 AM
SF have pushed it out for at least 10 years, by the very name of being called a unionist they'll hardly even give it any thought and will only be looking at creating a better union, not working out well for them at the minute.

Though dragging 1 million people into something they aint interested in will be problematic, this wasn't discussed 100 years ago when the shoe was on the other foot but seems to be an issue now lol

The only way to accommodate the unionist is to still allow them the be unionist, having a period of self governance a certain degree of nothing changing while blending in a new Ireland.

Forcing it will only end in disaster
It's not really 1m, there are a great number of people in the pro-union community who are persuadable or who actually wouldn't object provided they can see the benefits. There is a hardcore of around 300,000 who'd be vehemently against. That is probably reflected on the nationalist side by those who are accepting of the status quo. There is no active selling of a UI in my view by Nationalism at the moment it will take buy in from the Irish Government and Martin et al do not want to pursue a UI. They prefer to put funds into NI to help make it work. A SF led government in the South might change that.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 08, 2023, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 08, 2023, 10:18:50 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:45:59 PM
I don't know if Politicians coming from the Republic and "reaching out " to the likes of the Orange Order is much to do with attacking SF

It's more to do with a misguided and long held belief in the south amongst Official Ireland that if we are nice to Unionists they will suddenly morph into advocates for a United Ireland

This has continually proved to be wrong and every attempt has been thrown back in our faces

You only have to look at Brexit and the likes of the DUP seeking to do economic harm to the Republic

A United Ireland vote in NI will be won by appealing to the middle ground

Expecting one unionist to vote for it is harmless in the extreme

However, one part of convincing the middle ground is that they need to see that some effort was made to reach out to unionists. If the unionists spurn those efforts, as they almost inevitably will, it will still show the difference between the political culture. Also 10% of people from a unionist background will respond to these efforts and this too will help.

Are there 10% of Unionists or those from a Unionist background who would vote for a UI ?

Ive never seen this reflected in any poll

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 08, 2023, 12:03:44 PM
That kind of thing will change. NI in it's current form is not working. All you read about day in day out is funding cuts to health, to education, to the likes of disabled charities etc etc. Everything is getting cut left right and centre and life expectancy is going to reduce, unemployment is going to get higher etc. It's the same on either side tbh - an economic argument would sway a lot of people. The way the DUP are behaving they are swinging people who wouldn't vote UI to voting for it because as it stands it's in their own best interests.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 08, 2023, 12:18:26 PM
I think what we are seeing is a managed decline of the 6 counties whether through choice or necessity, similar to Thatchers government policy regarding the city of Liverpool in the 1980s. I don't see that improving anytime soon. The UK economy is tanking and this place is not a priority and the DUP had every chance to try and make it work but they have shown that its their own party before union or anything else.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on June 08, 2023, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 08, 2023, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 08, 2023, 10:18:50 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 07, 2023, 10:45:59 PM
I don't know if Politicians coming from the Republic and "reaching out " to the likes of the Orange Order is much to do with attacking SF

It's more to do with a misguided and long held belief in the south amongst Official Ireland that if we are nice to Unionists they will suddenly morph into advocates for a United Ireland

This has continually proved to be wrong and every attempt has been thrown back in our faces

You only have to look at Brexit and the likes of the DUP seeking to do economic harm to the Republic

A United Ireland vote in NI will be won by appealing to the middle ground

Expecting one unionist to vote for it is harmless in the extreme

However, one part of convincing the middle ground is that they need to see that some effort was made to reach out to unionists. If the unionists spurn those efforts, as they almost inevitably will, it will still show the difference between the political culture. Also 10% of people from a unionist background will respond to these efforts and this too will help.

Are there 10% of Unionists or those from a Unionist background who would vote for a UI ?

Ive never seen this reflected in any poll

Yes, and definitely more than 10%. However, they won't stand up and shout about it for fear of hate and ridicule. Many protestants are completely fed up with their politicians and the way that they're treated by the British. They didn't vote for Brexit and are very happy to travel on an Irish passport.

Vocal unionists and their politicians think these silent people will come out and vote for the status quo, but those politicians are in for a big shock. Just look at how independant Lady Harman was the north Down Westminster MP, and then the seat went to Alliance. It's anyone but the DUP and UU.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on June 08, 2023, 12:39:21 PM
As I've said before, it may look like Dublin is doing nothing but the protocol has effectively created an economic UI, same trading arrangements, same regulatory alignment for important industries like agriculture, maintained single market energy alignment across the island. It means when a vote passes, much of the behind the scenes groundwork has been done. We're going to become less dependent on UK for energy with new pipeline to France/EU and increases in wind energy. There's a reason the DUP and TUV hate the protocol - it gets rid of many of the headaches of unification. It's not really about a sausage checked at Larne.The big question is will the Irish government create a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund to support unification with the huge surpluses they will have over the next years. It would be a big miss not to and a statement of intent if they do. I have my doubts on that one. Paschal will be lecturing us that we need to pay down long term debt instead.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 08, 2023, 12:44:16 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 08, 2023, 12:18:26 PM
I think what we are seeing is a managed decline of the 6 counties whether through choice or necessity, similar to Thatchers government policy regarding the city of Liverpool in the 1980s. I don't see that improving anytime soon. The UK economy is tanking and this place is not a priority and the DUP had every chance to try and make it work but they have shown that its their own party before union or anything else.

NI has ready access to buoyant demand only an hour away and has access to to whole EU market. Public provision may not increase but there should be some opportunities for the private sector to enjoy modest success. For instance, if you could make modular houses in Derry or Tyrone and put them on a lorry then they would find a use for them in the 26 counties.

Quote from: Orior on June 08, 2023, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 08, 2023, 12:00:36 PM
Are there 10% of Unionists or those from a Unionist background who would vote for a UI ?

Ive never seen this reflected in any poll

Yes, and definitely more than 10%. However, they won't stand up and shout about it for fear of hate and ridicule. Many protestants are completely fed up with their politicians and the way that they're treated by the British. They didn't vote for Brexit and are very happy to travel on an Irish passport.

Vocal unionists and their politicians think these silent people will come out and vote for the status quo, but those politicians are in for a big shock. Just look at how independant Lady Harman was the north Down Westminster MP, and then the seat went to Alliance. It's anyone but the DUP and UU.


Now some of the unionists that might have been open to discussion have moved into the Alliance camp, but thee are still the type of anti Brexit unionists who can be talked to.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 08, 2023, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 08, 2023, 12:03:44 PM
That kind of thing will change. NI in it's current form is not working. All you read about day in day out is funding cuts to health, to education, to the likes of disabled charities etc etc. Everything is getting cut left right and centre and life expectancy is going to reduce, unemployment is going to get higher etc. It's the same on either side tbh - an economic argument would sway a lot of people. The way the DUP are behaving they are swinging people who wouldn't vote UI to voting for it because as it stands it's in their own best interests.

NI never  worked. Well , it did for a few decades... but only for unionists.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 08, 2023, 01:33:03 PM
How was the reunification of East Germany into West Germany at the time? Did it present issues and are there lessons to be learnt
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: blasmere on June 08, 2023, 01:39:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 08, 2023, 01:33:03 PM
How was the reunification of East Germany into West Germany at the time? Did it present issues and are there lessons to be learnt

The thing there was they were all Germans. Poverty and investment post Socialist collapse, were the major issues there which, the way things are going, the divide between North and South could be heading that way.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: jmcgdoire on June 08, 2023, 01:41:58 PM
Quote from: Feckitt on June 06, 2023, 12:57:31 PM
Nationalists outpolled Unionists by a not insignificant margin at the last election.  Unionists will never outpoll Nationalists at any election ever again, including the Unity Referendum, no matter how quickly it happens.

Also, the census results are already 2 years out of date, and the gap will have increased since then.

Wouldnt be so sure about this. Its one thing to sing sean south from garryowen. But we will soon find out how many real Nationalists there are if there is a referendum.
I personally would support a united Ireland but I dont think im in the majority - even amongst some of my "nationalist" peers. I think we are quite a bit away from it yet.
But if the DUP keep doing what theyre doing working as hard as they are: we will have a United Ireland in no time!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 08, 2023, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: blasmere on June 08, 2023, 01:39:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 08, 2023, 01:33:03 PM
How was the reunification of East Germany into West Germany at the time? Did it present issues and are there lessons to be learnt

The thing there was they were all Germans. Poverty and investment post Socialist collapse, were the major issues there which, the way things are going, the divide between North and South could be heading that way.

So there was resentment and mistrust? Along with job issues, should we get to that point it will be a bigger basket case than it currently is,  hopefully the south with all their millions will be able to share that with the paupers in the north..
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: yellowcard on June 08, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 08, 2023, 12:44:16 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 08, 2023, 12:18:26 PM
I think what we are seeing is a managed decline of the 6 counties whether through choice or necessity, similar to Thatchers government policy regarding the city of Liverpool in the 1980s. I don't see that improving anytime soon. The UK economy is tanking and this place is not a priority and the DUP had every chance to try and make it work but they have shown that its their own party before union or anything else.

NI has ready access to buoyant demand only an hour away and has access to to whole EU market. Public provision may not increase but there should be some opportunities for the private sector to enjoy modest success. For instance, if you could make modular houses in Derry or Tyrone and put them on a lorry then they would find a use for them in the 26 counties.

Quote from: Orior on June 08, 2023, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 08, 2023, 12:00:36 PM
Are there 10% of Unionists or those from a Unionist background who would vote for a UI ?

Ive never seen this reflected in any poll

Yes, and definitely more than 10%. However, they won't stand up and shout about it for fear of hate and ridicule. Many protestants are completely fed up with their politicians and the way that they're treated by the British. They didn't vote for Brexit and are very happy to travel on an Irish passport.

Vocal unionists and their politicians think these silent people will come out and vote for the status quo, but those politicians are in for a big shock. Just look at how independant Lady Harman was the north Down Westminster MP, and then the seat went to Alliance. It's anyone but the DUP and UU.


Now some of the unionists that might have been open to discussion have moved into the Alliance camp, but thee are still the type of anti Brexit unionists who can be talked to.

I wouldn't disagree with that in terms of the private sector, it's the public expenditure side of things that are being cut in real terms. Without the £15b or so annual subvention this place is still an economic basket case no matter what benefits the dual market access for goods will bring. I don't see any form of UK government be they Tory or Labour reversing those cuts whilst they have ever increasing levels of government debt.   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: keep her low this half on June 08, 2023, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 08, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 08, 2023, 12:44:16 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on June 08, 2023, 12:18:26 PM
I think what we are seeing is a managed decline of the 6 counties whether through choice or necessity, similar to Thatchers government policy regarding the city of Liverpool in the 1980s. I don't see that improving anytime soon. The UK economy is tanking and this place is not a priority and the DUP had every chance to try and make it work but they have shown that its their own party before union or anything else.

NI has ready access to buoyant demand only an hour away and has access to to whole EU market. Public provision may not increase but there should be some opportunities for the private sector to enjoy modest success. For instance, if you could make modular houses in Derry or Tyrone and put them on a lorry then they would find a use for them in the 26 counties.

Quote from: Orior on June 08, 2023, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 08, 2023, 12:00:36 PM
Are there 10% of Unionists or those from a Unionist background who would vote for a UI ?

Ive never seen this reflected in any poll

Yes, and definitely more than 10%. However, they won't stand up and shout about it for fear of hate and ridicule. Many protestants are completely fed up with their politicians and the way that they're treated by the British. They didn't vote for Brexit and are very happy to travel on an Irish passport.

Vocal unionists and their politicians think these silent people will come out and vote for the status quo, but those politicians are in for a big shock. Just look at how independant Lady Harman was the north Down Westminster MP, and then the seat went to Alliance. It's anyone but the DUP and UU.


Now some of the unionists that might have been open to discussion have moved into the Alliance camp, but thee are still the type of anti Brexit unionists who can be talked to.

I wouldn't disagree with that in terms of the private sector, it's the public expenditure side of things that are being cut in real terms. Without the £15b or so annual subvention this place is still an economic basket case no matter what benefits the dual market access for goods will bring. I don't see any form of UK government be they Tory or Labour reversing those cuts whilst they have ever increasing levels of government debt.

This is a very important point, the UK is in serious difficulties post Brexit but the governmnent and the media don't want to admit it. Have a listen to Chris Patten last week on Question time about his opinion on the state of the UK economy. Costs will have to be cut and NI is ripe for the chop, no votes to lose over here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 12, 2023, 12:58:52 PM
The UK government subvention to Northern Ireland, generally estimated at £10 billion (€11.6 billion), has raised doubts about the viability of a united Ireland based on the capacity of the Republic to absorb a subsidy of this size. Analysing the basis by which the subvention is calculated demonstrates that it includes significant costs which would not be carried over to a united Ireland and other costs that would be part of post-referendum negotiations between the Irish and UK governments.


The subvention is the public-sector deficit for Northern Ireland, and it has three components: public expenditure in Northern Ireland, taxation raised in Northern Ireland and an allocation to Northern Ireland of the costs of central UK government expenditure. The most significant element of public expenditure is the cost of pensions, which adds £3.5 billion to the subvention, including both public occupational pensions that are not covered by a separate pension fund, and means-tested pensions.


In the event of referendums being passed to create a united Ireland, this will be one of the biggest issues to be negotiated between the Irish and British governments.

The UK pays pensions to people who have worked in the UK but now live elsewhere, including in Ireland. It would be consistent with current practice for the UK to pay pension liability that had been built up, based on individuals' tax and social insurance contributions or caring responsibilities, during Northern Ireland's membership of the UK. This would also be similar to the pension arrangements in the UK's withdrawal

Such an agreement would leave the Irish Government with responsibility for all pension liabilities built up from the date of the creation of the new Irish state. While the UK could renege on this commitment, it is a very unlikely outcome, and the most probable diplomatic agreement is one which sees the UK meeting such its pension liabilities.

UK national debt
The subvention also includes a £1.6 billion allocation to the UK national debt. This is a legal liability of the UK state, and a future united Ireland would have no legal responsibility for this debt. If an Irish government agreed to make some voluntary contribution to UK debt, as part of a larger deal, they would be entitled to claim a share of UK assets proportionate to Northern Ireland's size, offsetting the debt contribution. In practice, and following the precedent when the Irish Free State was created, it is more likely that a simple standstill agreement would be reached, where Ireland waives any claim to UK assets outside of Northern Ireland and in return takes on no debt.

The allocation of central UK defence expenditure adds £1.14 billion per annum to the subvention, including a per-capita contribution to the Trident nuclear weapons programme and the military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost none of this allocation relates to expenditure in Northern Ireland and would not transfer to a united Ireland. To put this figure in context, Ireland's current defence budget is €1 billion, so even allowing for an increase in a future Irish defence budget of about €200 million this would still represent a saving of more than £900 million per annum.

An additional £765 million per annum is allocated as Northern Ireland's contribution to 'outside UK expenditure' including the large UK Foreign Office. Again, little of this would automatically transfer to a united Ireland, reducing the subvention by at least £500 million.

The subvention underestimates tax revenues for Northern Ireland, as corporation tax, capital gains and VAT are paid by companies from their head-office address regardless of where that profit was earned, exaggerating the tax earned in London. Previous studies have estimated that this underestimation of tax revenue actually earned in Northern Ireland adds £500 million to the size of subvention.

The economic debate on unity needs to move on to the more important questions of the policy decisions necessary to support sustainable economic growth

A further lack of precision in the UK published accounts is the net impact of 'accounting adjustments' due to depreciation, which increases the subvention by £873 million. The accounts also include 'unidentified' UK central government expenditure of £450 million per annum. It is impossible from the published data to estimate how much of this expenditure would transfer to a united Ireland, but it will not be the full published amount.

Taking the latest UK published figure for the subvention of £9.4 billion, and excluding UK pension liabilities, debt repayments, 80 per cent of defence expenditure, 65 per cent of 'out of UK expenditure' and £500 million in underestimated tax, but erring on the side of caution, and not making any reduction for "accounting adjustments" or other "unidentified expenditure", leaves a remaining subvention figure of €2.8 billion.

Growth
A subvention of this size would require once-off economic growth and tax revenue growth in a future united Ireland of about 5 per cent to absorb this deficit without disruption. Existing economic models of an all-island economy predict a positive impact on economic growth within a range sufficient to cover this deficit. In the context of a united Ireland if "Northern Ireland's" economy improved so that it simply reflected average Irish economic performance, no subvention would be required.

A subvention of €2.8 billion does not present a significant barrier to Irish unity and the economic debate on unity needs to move on to the more important questions of the policy decisions necessary to support sustainable economic growth to maximise the benefits of a larger and integrated all-island economy and to support improved public services in health, welfare, education and infrastructure. These will be the real issues that will shape the costs and benefits of a united Ireland and they will be central in the future referenda debates. Compared with those decisions the subvention is irrelevant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trueblue1234 on June 12, 2023, 06:23:16 PM
That's an excellent piece. Where was this from? Going on the assumptions that the figures are correct, this is the sort of thing that should be pushed more in the media by nationalists. Too often there are half truths and misinformation out there that don't get challenged.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Aaron Boone on June 12, 2023, 07:42:34 PM
Drive into Dublin from the Port Tunnel and its multinationals everywhere. Serious operators like JP Morgan or Indeed each employing at least hundreds.

These companies could easily be in Belfast once everything is uniformed.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on June 12, 2023, 08:50:51 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on June 12, 2023, 06:23:16 PM
That's an excellent piece. Where was this from? Going on the assumptions that the figures are correct, this is the sort of thing that should be pushed more in the media by nationalists. Too often there are half truths and misinformation out there that don't get challenged.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uk-subvention-to-north-irrelevant-to-debate-on-irish-unity-1.4587773 (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uk-subvention-to-north-irrelevant-to-debate-on-irish-unity-1.4587773)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 12, 2023, 09:01:54 PM
David McWilliams: The economies of North and South are slowly integrating
As both jurisdictions integrate further, the economic distinctions between Northern Ireland and the Republic may have almost disappeared by the time a Border poll is called


David McWilliams
Sat Jun 10 2023 - 05:00

On summer evenings throughout the North you can hear the bands practising, beating out marching tunes from Orange Halls, looking backwards rather than planning for the future. And the future is arriving quickly in Northern Ireland, not just in a post-dated demographic cheque revealing a substantial nationalist majority under the age of 25, but in the quiet success of what might be termed the island economy. Whether the loyal brotherhood like it or not, the economies of the North and its much larger cousin, the South, are integrating slowing but surely. This will continue because it makes commercial sense.

For economists, the division of Ireland created something close to an economic laboratory. The same people, more or less, on the same island, with the same natural endowments are cleaved apart by a border. One part begins much richer than the other and is tied to one of the richest countries in the world. The other heads off on its own, without capital or any real plan other than not liking its neighbour. The outcome is the economic equivalent of the nature versus nurture debate.

In the case of this island, it seems that nurture has trumped nature. The poorer part has ended up much richer, which means that policy matters, jurisdiction matters, as do legal, educational and tax systems. But something else matters too, something more nebulous. Call it the mood of the nation or the purpose of the endeavour.

The purpose of 21st-century Ireland is prosperity. We can argue over what prosperity means and in particular the success otherwise of its just distribution, but there is little doubt that prosperity for the many is the socioeconomic goal of the Irish State. This is the purpose of the endeavour, the point of the exercise.

The point of Northern Ireland is not prosperity. Right now, among unionist politicians, the central strategy seems to centre on the immiseration of the people in order to inflate the likely future cost of any united Ireland, so as to scare off lukewarm nationalists of "middle Ireland". How else can you interpret the oft-heard expression "The South can't afford us" other than "We" are going to remain impoverished as a negotiating strategy? It doesn't matter what sort of poverty we endure as long as it's red, white and blue poverty. It's worthy of Flann O'Brien.

However, this tactic is not working because the story of the past 25 years since the signing of the Belfast Agreement has been the quiet, modest but obvious success of the integration of the island economy. Commerce always finds a way. Thirty thousand people cross the Border every day to go to work. Since Brexit, and through the Covid years, cross-Border trading has increased. In 2021, Ireland exported €3.7 billion to Northern Ireland and imported €4 billion, a significant increase from 2020, when exports stood at about €2.5 billion. Imports from Northern Ireland to the Republic also increased, Central Statistics Office (CSO) data shows.

Overall, exports to Northern Ireland as a proportion of all Irish exports to the UK increased from 16 per cent to 23 per cent in the past two years. Similarly, the share of UK imports coming from Northern Ireland has shot up. Politics might be trying to create borders, but trade is doing its own thing.

The orientation of trade in Northern Ireland has been transformed by Brexit. The Republic is Northern Ireland's single largest export market, accounting for 40 per cent of total exports outside exports to Britain. Before Brexit, Northern Ireland exports to Britain were 3.7 times greater than exports to the Republic; now that figure is only 2.5 times greater. Trade between both parts of the island is flourishing. The value of exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic increased by 23 per cent between 2020 and 2021, according to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA); a much larger increase than the change in total exports.

Brexit is not a wedge between both parts of the island. Rather, it has proved to be a bridge – precisely what the protocol is designed to do. Northern Ireland has the best of both worlds, one foot in the EU and one in the UK.

But there is a long way to go.

With improved infrastructure, specifically improved train and road access to the North, it is highly likely that commercial and financial ties will solidify

The Troubles are estimated to have reduced Northern Ireland's GDP by up to 10 per cent. However, in the quarter century since the Belfast Agreement, a real divergence emerged between the North and South. Economic indicators make it abundantly clear that the peace dividend went to the South.

From 1998 to 2021, the Northern Ireland economy expanded by about 38 per cent in real terms, considerably less than the Republic. Even taking the GNI (gross national income) measure, which strips out the distorting effects of multinationals on the economy, the Irish economy has grown by about 83 per cent in real terms, more than double the rate of the North.

Central to this economic underperformance of the North relative to the Republic is its poor productivity performance. Productivity is the key to driving improvements in living standards, and Northern Ireland has the worst productivity (measured in terms of output per hours worked) of any UK region, about 17 per cent below the UK average as a whole. (The UK itself is among the worst performing economies in the OECD.) In contrast, productivity per worker is about 40 per cent higher in the Republic relative to the North. Wages can't rise when productivity is so low, which explains why wages are so much lower in the North, running on average about 64 per cent of those in Ireland.

But here is the opportunity. The Republic has too much demand and not enough supply; the North has too much supply and not enough demand. Integrate further and gains accrue to both jurisdictions.

Take commercial rents, which are far lower in the North. Prime rents in Belfast are £23 (€26.73) per sq ft as opposed to €65 in Dublin. Surely this gap can be bridged as companies move? The average monthly rent in the North is £773 (about €900), as opposed to the average rent in the Republic, which stands at €1,750 – almost double that in Northern Ireland. The average cost of a home in Northern Ireland is £197,800 (€229,902); it is €308,497 in the South.

As both jurisdictions integrate further, companies and talent will locate where there is best value. With improved infrastructure, specifically improved train and road access to the North, it is highly likely that commercial and financial ties will solidify. So much so that the economic distinctions between North and South may have almost disappeared by the time a Border poll is called.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 12, 2023, 10:22:26 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on June 12, 2023, 06:23:16 PM
That's an excellent piece. Where was this from? Going on the assumptions that the figures are correct, this is the sort of thing that should be pushed more in the media by nationalists. Too often there are half truths and misinformation out there that don't get challenged.

Professor Doyle's article is based on peer-reviewed research published in the special issue of ISIA on ARINS: Analysing and Researching Ireland, North and South.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 13, 2023, 12:43:38 AM
The subvention has always been based on dodgy accounts and guesses. Ridiculous that the government doesn't actually seem to know the real figure. Great article. I wonder if it factors in the tax revenues from UK wide business like Tesco's etc whose profits from NI will be declared though across the water.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on June 13, 2023, 02:29:23 AM
Wouldn't there also be additional increased costs for the south, not covered in the subvention?  Like policing, education, particularly in loyalist areas? 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 08:33:46 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 13, 2023, 12:43:38 AM
The subvention has always been based on dodgy accounts and guesses. Ridiculous that the government doesn't actually seem to know the real figure. Great article. I wonder if it factors in the tax revenues from UK wide business like Tesco's etc whose profits from NI will be declared though across the water.

It does


"The subvention underestimates tax revenues for Northern Ireland, as corporation tax, capital gains and VAT are paid by companies from their head-office address regardless of where that profit was earned, exaggerating the tax earned in London. Previous studies have estimated that this underestimation of tax revenue actually earned in Northern Ireland adds £500 million to the size of subvention."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 08:36:01 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 13, 2023, 02:29:23 AM
Wouldn't there also be additional increased costs for the south, not covered in the subvention?  Like policing, education, particularly in loyalist areas?

"so even allowing for an increase in a future Irish defence budget of about €200 million this would still represent a saving of more than £900 million per annum."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 09:40:13 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?

An individual worker in Intel in Kildare or Eli Lilly in Kinsale would have a massively greater productivity than a bin man in Carrickfergus

It's the value of the work that they produce is what counts

The more highly skilled and better educated workforce you have the higher the productivity

"productivity is a measure of economic performance that compares the amount of output with the amount of labor used to produce that output."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 09:49:35 AM
We're not all binmen up here you know  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Aristo 60 on June 13, 2023, 09:51:52 AM
No, we're mostly bin lids  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 09:53:00 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on June 13, 2023, 10:10:44 AM
Mostly civil servants taking turns to scratch each others arses on one of their dozen or so daily tea breaks. That's if they're not "off on the sick".
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on June 13, 2023, 10:11:45 AM
Quote from: general_lee on June 13, 2023, 10:10:44 AM
Mostly civil servants taking turns to scratch each others arses on one of their dozen or so daily tea breaks. That's if they're not "off on the sick".

I have worked in both the private and public sectors. The difference is wild!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 10:25:29 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 09:49:35 AM
We're not all binmen up here you know  ;D


Regardless of what ye are

"productivity per worker is about 40 per cent higher in the Republic relative to the North"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 10:32:42 AM
Regardless of that point I dunno why you are comparing a binman in carrickfergus to an intel worker in kildare as it makes absolutely no sense...

How is productivity measured?

I would say public sector balance up here skews it plus the "community workers" maybe don't help...
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 10:34:26 AM
There probably aren't any figures on the number of people touch threatened or intimidated per month.....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 10:25:29 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 09:49:35 AM
We're not all binmen up here you know  ;D


Regardless of what ye are

"productivity per worker is about 40 per cent higher in the Republic relative to the North"

Would the productivity of lets say someone working in an Intel type company in the North be 40% less than same worker in Kildare?

How much harder do the binmen work in the south?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Aristo 60 on June 13, 2023, 11:10:45 AM
The south's bins are tiny compared to the north's. Gotta factor that in to the productivity calcs.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 11:25:45 AM
Quote from: Aristo 60 on June 13, 2023, 11:10:45 AM
The south's bins are tiny compared to the north's. Gotta factor that in to the productivity calcs.

Nordies in knowing how to dispose of stuff shocker
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?
It's a more advanced economy versus a less advanced economy. That makes me think of Carson.
Because 100 years ago it was the other way around,
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 11:54:42 AM
SF how is it measured?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 11:54:53 AM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?
It's a more advanced economy versus a less advanced economy. That makes me think of Carson.
Because 100 years ago it was the other way around,

1907 two-thirds of the economic value of the entire island came from the six counties

1911 Belfast is the biggest City on the Island

2023 The Republic's economy is 7 times larger than the North's

2023 ROI exports are 11 times greater in value than the North's

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 11:56:27 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 10:32:42 AM
Regardless of that point I dunno why you are comparing a binman in carrickfergus to an intel worker in kildare as it makes absolutely no sense...

How is productivity measured?

I would say public sector balance up here skews it plus the "community workers" maybe don't help...

I just gave you an example of how productivity is measured and it "makes absolutely no sense "

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 10:25:29 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 09:49:35 AM
We're not all binmen up here you know  ;D


Regardless of what ye are

"productivity per worker is about 40 per cent higher in the Republic relative to the North"

Would the productivity of lets say someone working in an Intel type company in the North be 40% less than same worker in Kildare?

How much harder do the binmen work in the south?

for the love of Jesus

Its not a question of how hard lads work

that isnt how productivity is measured

I spend all day braking rocks with a lump hammer in a quarry in Leitrim

You are a Data Analyst with Google in Silicon Docks

Which of us has the higher productivity ?


Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?
It's a more advanced economy versus a less advanced economy. That makes me think of Carson.
Because 100 years ago it was the other way around,

100?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 01:00:10 PM
Unionists

"The NHS is so much better than the Health Service in the South"

Paul Givan DUP

"The UK government should be embarrassed that the Republic of Ireland is investing in Northern Ireland nursing training capacity, because that should be a United Kingdom priority."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on June 13, 2023, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 01:00:10 PM
Unionists

"The NHS is so much better than the Health Service in the South"

Paul Givan DUP

"The UK government should be embarrassed that the Republic of Ireland is investing in Northern Ireland nursing training capacity, because that should be a United Kingdom priority."

And yet life expectancy is 2 years longer in the south.

Go figure.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 01:18:52 PM
He's a complete muppet who has some neck on him talking about other people who should be embarassed.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 01:28:37 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 10:25:29 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 09:49:35 AM
We're not all binmen up here you know  ;D


Regardless of what ye are

"productivity per worker is about 40 per cent higher in the Republic relative to the North"

Would the productivity of lets say someone working in an Intel type company in the North be 40% less than same worker in Kildare?

How much harder do the binmen work in the south?

for the love of Jesus

Its not a question of how hard lads work

that isnt how productivity is measured

I spend all day braking rocks with a lump hammer in a quarry in Leitrim

You are a Data Analyst with Google in Silicon Docks

Which of us has the higher productivity ?
But why can't the Fermanagh rock breaker do as much as the Laythrum one?
Do 6Cis folk spend more time whinging or is it all those godawful parades?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 01:47:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?
It's a more advanced economy versus a less advanced economy. That makes me think of Carson.
Because 100 years ago it was the other way around,


100?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2023/03/04/unionists-prefer-grim-past-to-future-and-flags-to-good-fortune/
By 1911, Belfast was the biggest city in Ireland with a population of 386,947, bigger than a declining Dublin at 304,802. At the outbreak of the first World War, two-thirds of the industrial output of the entire island of Ireland came from the six counties that would go on to become Northern Ireland. The northeast was by far the richest part of the island.


Unionists used to look down on the Free State because it was poorer than the North
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on June 13, 2023, 01:52:03 PM
On the productivity differences, there is a full report on this which can be read here.

https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/RS152.pdf

Mind you, I only got as far as here:

More formally, we examine the determinants of productivity using a panel
estimation framework and the general relationship is described in Equation 1 for
each region:

𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽𝑗𝑗𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖 + 𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (1)

where 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is the dependent variable (gross value added per worker) observed for
each sector i in time t, 𝛽𝛽0 is a constant term, 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 represents a number of j
independent variables with 𝛽𝛽𝑗𝑗 the associated coefficients, 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖 is the unobserved
time-invariant sector effect and 𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 the error term. In terms of the specific panel
modeling approach adopted, we opt for a fixed effect estimator, following the
results of a Hausman test, that allows us to model the determinants of productivity
while controlling for time invariant country-level fixed effects and identify causal
relationships.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 02:18:43 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 01:47:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?
It's a more advanced economy versus a less advanced economy. That makes me think of Carson.
Because 100 years ago it was the other way around,


100?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2023/03/04/unionists-prefer-grim-past-to-future-and-flags-to-good-fortune/
By 1911, Belfast was the biggest city in Ireland with a population of 386,947, bigger than a declining Dublin at 304,802. At the outbreak of the first World War, two-thirds of the industrial output of the entire island of Ireland came from the six counties that would go on to become Northern Ireland. The northeast was by far the richest part of the island.


Unionists used to look down on the Free State because it was poorer than the North

Did the South have better infrastructure, cost of living and health care in the 70's?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on June 13, 2023, 02:38:06 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 13, 2023, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 01:00:10 PM
Unionists

"The NHS is so much better than the Health Service in the South"

Paul Givan DUP

"The UK government should be embarrassed that the Republic of Ireland is investing in Northern Ireland nursing training capacity, because that should be a United Kingdom priority."

And yet life expectancy is 2 years longer in the south.

Go figure.

Longer wait time for everything down here.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 02:48:53 PM
Are you sure? Waiting lists in the north are bad. It even takes hours to get into a&e from an ambulance.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on June 13, 2023, 02:52:03 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 02:48:53 PM
Are you sure? Waiting lists in the north are bad. It even takes hours to get into a&e from an ambulance.
The NHS in the north is a f**king joke.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 13, 2023, 03:06:30 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 13, 2023, 02:38:06 PM
Longer wait time for everything down here.

Like many people, you are living in the past, when health and roads and suchlike were better in the occupied territories.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 03:07:59 PM
The roads aren't that bad up here. The NHS on the other hand is completely f**ked.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: andoireabu on June 13, 2023, 03:23:56 PM
I'm assuming he meant since waiting times are longer for everything in the Republic it also means you have to wait longer to die, hence the longer life expectancy.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 13, 2023, 03:24:20 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 03:07:59 PM
The roads aren't that bad up here. The NHS on the other hand is completely f**ked.

Venture off an A road and it's pot luck, no pun intended.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Saffrongael on June 13, 2023, 03:27:19 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 13, 2023, 03:24:20 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 03:07:59 PM
The roads aren't that bad up here. The NHS on the other hand is completely f**ked.

Venture off an A road and it's pot luck, no pun intended.

Is the south any better in that regard ? Not in my experience & as for Donegal  :-\
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 13, 2023, 03:28:45 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 03:07:59 PM
The roads aren't that bad up here. The NHS on the other hand is completely f**ked.

The roads are not that bad, but not now better than the 26 counties as was the case in the 80s.
The thing about the health in NI is that it has gone downhill quite quickly without much comment, yet people say that the SNP has not delivered.
https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/from-bad-to-worse-northern-irelands-care-crisis

(https://talk.hyvor.com/media/website/6735/0eEHiIkZNVbKdxlEu99R7gY1nTYULlP5MDnMrDoe.jpg)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 03:31:37 PM
There is a bit of comment but not enough. I fully expect life expectancy to reduce year on year from now on with how things are going too.

Your man in the telegraph sam thingy who did the RHI book is starting to do articles on it.

UK wide the NHS is in a bad place but it's worse here and probably considerably worse.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 03:31:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 02:18:43 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 01:47:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?
It's a more advanced economy versus a less advanced economy. That makes me think of Carson.
Because 100 years ago it was the other way around,


100?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2023/03/04/unionists-prefer-grim-past-to-future-and-flags-to-good-fortune/
By 1911, Belfast was the biggest city in Ireland with a population of 386,947, bigger than a declining Dublin at 304,802. At the outbreak of the first World War, two-thirds of the industrial output of the entire island of Ireland came from the six counties that would go on to become Northern Ireland. The northeast was by far the richest part of the island.


Unionists used to look down on the Free State because it was poorer than the North

Did the South have better infrastructure, cost of living and health care in the 70's?
It definitely had more stable infrastructure and there were huge savings on roadblocks and internment centres. The savings were invested in education.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 13, 2023, 03:37:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 03:31:54 PM
It definitely had more stable infrastructure and there were huge savings on roadblocks and internment centres. The savings were invested in education.

NI definitely did not invest in education. The parties preferred to have no water charges and to fund bonfires rather than invest in education. Again the Scots did the job here.
Far fewer go to Thirld level than in the 26 counties and for many years the school funding went down
(https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg_full_width_desktop/public/2023-04/School%20spending%20per%20pupil%20across%20England%2C%20Wales%2C%20Scotland%20and%20Northern%20Ireland%20%282022%E2%80%9323%20prices%29%2C%20actual%20and%20planned%20spending.png)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 13, 2023, 03:47:23 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on June 13, 2023, 03:23:56 PM
I'm assuming he meant since waiting times are longer for everything in the Republic it also means you have to wait longer to die, hence the longer life expectancy.


Mudderajaysis

Where do you even start with that for a comment

Longer waiting times = longer to die =longer life expectancy


Waiting times HSE v NHS

Between 2017 and 2021, for day and in-patient services, the proportion on the waiting list for more than one year has increased from 12% to 20% in Ireland and from 20% to 60% in Northern Ireland.

And

Healthy Life Expectancy

healthy life expectancy is closer to 62 years, rather than 61, while in the Republic of Ireland healthy life expectancy is indeed around 69.4 years.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 03:51:36 PM
The NHS up here is f**ked. Anyone who still uses it as a reason to not want a united ireland either has not been following or is telling lies... (e.g. Givan)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 13, 2023, 04:04:01 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 03:31:37 PM
There is a bit of comment but not enough. I fully expect life expectancy to reduce year on year from now on with how things are going too.

Your man in the telegraph sam thingy who did the RHI book is starting to do articles on it.

UK wide the NHS is in a bad place but it's worse here and probably considerably worse.

All part of the  plan  though

Cost of living ,  housing crisis,  health service crisis,  climate taxes etc etc . People can't afford to  get on the property  ladder , or  pay childcare  . Can't afford to eat  healthy  . All designed to restrict population  growth and  finish people off early
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 04:05:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 03:31:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 02:18:43 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 01:47:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 13, 2023, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2023, 09:05:56 AM
Why the awful low productivity in the 6?
Why does a Monaghan worker produce a lot more than an Arnagh or Tyrone one?
Or is it down to exceptionally high productivity in the East and South East?
It's a more advanced economy versus a less advanced economy. That makes me think of Carson.
Because 100 years ago it was the other way around,


100?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2023/03/04/unionists-prefer-grim-past-to-future-and-flags-to-good-fortune/
By 1911, Belfast was the biggest city in Ireland with a population of 386,947, bigger than a declining Dublin at 304,802. At the outbreak of the first World War, two-thirds of the industrial output of the entire island of Ireland came from the six counties that would go on to become Northern Ireland. The northeast was by far the richest part of the island.


Unionists used to look down on the Free State because it was poorer than the North

Did the South have better infrastructure, cost of living and health care in the 70's?
It definitely had more stable infrastructure and there were huge savings on roadblocks and internment centres. The savings were invested in education.

Not from memory did it seem to have better infrastructure, road blocks mainly in the summer months, when schools were off so not losing out too much on the education savings and the quarry's were making a killing at resurfacing the roads every September and the glazers never stopped. But I think your 100 years is a bit of a myth, I suppose if you say it enough you might believe it, you'll be telling me next the church had no say in things  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on June 13, 2023, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on June 13, 2023, 03:23:56 PM
I'm assuming he meant since waiting times are longer for everything in the Republic it also means you have to wait longer to die, hence the longer life expectancy.

Yeah, it was a joke that pretty clearly failed to land.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 04:07:09 PM
I would have said privatising the NHS was the end goal rather than bumping people off tbh...

Everything is just about making money for their own pockets when it comes to the UK government. If it has side effects of bumping people off so be it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: andoireabu on June 13, 2023, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 13, 2023, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on June 13, 2023, 03:23:56 PM
I'm assuming he meant since waiting times are longer for everything in the Republic it also means you have to wait longer to die, hence the longer life expectancy.

Yeah, it was a joke that pretty clearly failed to land.

Some lads can't see the craic in anything. Have to debate constantly and prove a lad wrong. Must be hard to fill a day at that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 13, 2023, 05:02:42 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on June 13, 2023, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 13, 2023, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on June 13, 2023, 03:23:56 PM
I'm assuming he meant since waiting times are longer for everything in the Republic it also means you have to wait longer to die, hence the longer life expectancy.

Yeah, it was a joke that pretty clearly failed to land.

Some lads can't see the craic in anything. Have to debate constantly and prove a lad wrong. Must be hard to fill a day at that

I just didn't see the joke.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 13, 2023, 06:04:24 PM
I read something recently about the DUP running down the North in order to make the higher cost of reunification a turnoff for lukewarm Republicans in the South.

Surely the other parties can fight this nihilism.
https://youtu.be/cyGbBCc8aU0
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 13, 2023, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 04:07:09 PM
I would have said privatising the NHS was the end goal rather than bumping people off tbh...

Everything is just about making money for their own pockets when it comes to the UK government. If it has side effects of bumping people off so be it.

They've built a whole new block to the Ulster Hospital and it's plain as day it's been built with private medical care in mind.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 13, 2023, 10:28:31 PM
Newsletter editorial rant. Reader discretion advised:


QuoteBen Lowry: Unionists and London have consistently failed to challenge Ireland's repeated criticisms of the UK on legacy

To see how weak unionists and the government have been on legacy, consider Leo Varadkar on Friday (this article was first published in the print newspaper on Saturday June 10).

The Irish prime minister had the nerve to say amendments to a Westminster bill aimed at tackling Northern Ireland's past "don't go far enough". He was referring to government attempts to placate nationalist criticisms of the legacy bill, which offers an amnesty for people accused of Troubles crimes if they assist truth recovery. The ever scolding Mr Varadkar said he had raised the issue several times with the prime minister, then said legacy "is one of the few things that all five major parties in Northern Ireland are united on".

Unionists are wholly to blame for the way in which a Taoiseach can imply that they and the IRA are at one on legacy. They have joined with nationalist opposition to the bill, instead of making clear their contempt for how even moderate nationalists now rarely challenge a republican narrative on the past.

Meanwhile, London has moved to shut down legacy rather than take the fight to their tormentors, including an Irish state that refused to extradite IRA murderers over three decades. While Dublin drones on about the amnesty, the UK is too feeble even to cite Ireland's own de facto amnesty for IRA (sic). For years I have said the only response to such Irish hypocrisy is unilateral UK probes into Irish terrorism.

Typo aside, what's Ben waffling about here? Wasn't Mountjoy full of IRA prisoners?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on June 14, 2023, 01:14:35 AM
Portlaoise too.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: FermGael on June 14, 2023, 07:28:23 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 13, 2023, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 13, 2023, 04:07:09 PM
I would have said privatising the NHS was the end goal rather than bumping people off tbh...

Everything is just about making money for their own pockets when it comes to the UK government. If it has side effects of bumping people off so be it.

They've built a whole new block to the Ulster Hospital and it's plain as day it's been built with private medical care in mind.

They built a whole new hospital in Enniskillen and it's been as clear as day it was built with private medical care in mind
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 14, 2023, 08:23:49 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 13, 2023, 10:28:31 PM
Newsletter editorial rant. Reader discretion advised:


QuoteBen Lowry: Unionists and London have consistently failed to challenge Ireland's repeated criticisms of the UK on legacy

To see how weak unionists and the government have been on legacy, consider Leo Varadkar on Friday (this article was first published in the print newspaper on Saturday June 10).

The Irish prime minister had the nerve to say amendments to a Westminster bill aimed at tackling Northern Ireland's past "don't go far enough". He was referring to government attempts to placate nationalist criticisms of the legacy bill, which offers an amnesty for people accused of Troubles crimes if they assist truth recovery. The ever scolding Mr Varadkar said he had raised the issue several times with the prime minister, then said legacy "is one of the few things that all five major parties in Northern Ireland are united on".

Unionists are wholly to blame for the way in which a Taoiseach can imply that they and the IRA are at one on legacy. They have joined with nationalist opposition to the bill, instead of making clear their contempt for how even moderate nationalists now rarely challenge a republican narrative on the past.

Meanwhile, London has moved to shut down legacy rather than take the fight to their tormentors, including an Irish state that refused to extradite IRA murderers over three decades. While Dublin drones on about the amnesty, the UK is too feeble even to cite Ireland's own de facto amnesty for IRA (sic). For years I have said the only response to such Irish hypocrisy is unilateral UK probes into Irish terrorism.

Typo aside, what's Ben waffling about here? Wasn't Mountjoy full of IRA prisoners?

The South had no issues with executing IRA prisoners right up to the 1940's and had non jury trials in place long before Diplock in the north

He also might bone up on the Emergency Powers Act which is still on the books down here and see what could be used against the IRA

And speaking of probes into terrorism,one should definitely be opened into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and specifically UK state involvement in them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on June 15, 2023, 08:33:55 PM
I was catching up on some recent political theme programs on Radio Ulster and happened upon Sammy Wilson talk about revisiting the definition of an acceptable majority vote in the context of a AI referendum and that 50 +1 is totally  'unacceptable'. My own opinion is that a future AI referendum be held on the same terms as the Brexit referendum, the results of  which a celebratory DUP (in their wilful ignorance) gleefully imposed upon the NI public.

I appreciate it's not just Sammy  attempting to revisit the the terms of the Belfast Agreement on that matter.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 15, 2023, 09:31:38 PM
It's entirely predictable. Their commitment to "democracy" was always contingent on them being in the majority, even if it meant carving a gerrymandered state out of Ulster. As soon as the demographics start to go the other way, expect the goalposts to move again. Repartition will probably be the next rallying cry for unionism.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 93-DY-SAM on June 16, 2023, 09:27:35 AM
This is a supremacist organisation you are talking about here. They have one goal and one goal only. Lord it over anyone who isn't them especially them Fenians.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Feckitt on June 16, 2023, 11:55:51 AM
After the election showing Nationalists considerably outpolling Unionists, and the Census showing Catholics outnumbering Protestants, there was an awful lot of discussion on the election programmes and the days following that Unionists need to reach out to their Catholic neighbours to show that NI is for everybody, and can be shared with a generosity of spirit, and NI can survive by being inclusive and welcoming to Nationalists.  Lots of Unionist commentators, Sam McBride etc where weighing in behind this.  This is how to save the Union, and there are lots of good arguments for NI staying in the UK

HOWEVER,
Since then we have had the UUP on radio arguing that East Belfast GAA do not deserve a pitch and they have some way to go before they can demonstrate they would be acceptable to 'The People'
We have had the DUP in the most openly bigoted way possible objecting to Bi-lingual signs in a South Belfast Leisure Centre.
We have had the BBC/Nolan and Belfast Telegraph and all Unionist parties go apeshit over an annual Republican commemoration in Mullaghbawn. 
We have had the Newsletter publishing lies about alleged sectarian chanting at GAA matches (Not true)
We have had the DUP continuing to Boycott Stormont because they wont play second fiddle to a Fenian First Minister

There is a very clear path on how NI can stay in the UK, but Unionists don't want to go down that road.  NI is finished.  The time for a Unity Referendum is NOW!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 16, 2023, 03:18:38 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 15, 2023, 09:31:38 PM
It's entirely predictable. Their commitment to "democracy" was always contingent on them being in the majority, even if it meant carving a gerrymandered state out of Ulster. As soon as the demographics start to go the other way, expect the goalposts to move again. Repartition will probably be the next rallying cry for unionism.

They could always  build a wall  around  Larne or Carrickfergus,  have it like a British  enclave, a bit   like the Spanish territory  of Ceuta   in Morocco .

I reckon  nationalists  might settle for  that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Hereiam on June 16, 2023, 03:36:43 PM
It might a case of someone looking at what mad ideas west minister would look to introduce to bring the power of balance back to the unionist.
You can be sure there is some think tank working on this as we speak.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on June 16, 2023, 03:39:56 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on June 16, 2023, 03:36:43 PM
It might a case of someone looking at what mad ideas west minister would look to introduce to bring the power of balance back to the unionist.
You can be sure there is some think tank working on this as we speak.

They'll ask for a supermajority in a referendum. Or 2/3 of electoral constituencies will be needed to vote yes.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on June 16, 2023, 04:27:44 PM
This notion of a needing a "supermajority" or 50%+1 not being enough is pure rubbish and will never be a requirement in the passing of a border poll.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on June 16, 2023, 04:33:09 PM
Or even "losers consent". That's a new one ;D
50%+1 will be enough whether they like it or not
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: HiMucker on June 16, 2023, 04:44:40 PM
Losers consent is a totally normal concept. Its actually the basis of democracy including 50%+1. Ie, anyone voting in an election is giving losers consent if who/what they vote for doesn't win. I think people are confused when this term has been thrown out there. It's just jargon that's used in political science.
Ps. Examples of elections that do not have losers consent are ones that one side boycotts the election, or says the election is rigged.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: andoireabu on June 16, 2023, 07:16:28 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on June 16, 2023, 04:44:40 PM
Losers consent is a totally normal concept. Its actually the basis of democracy including 50%+1. Ie, anyone voting in an election is giving losers consent if who/what they vote for doesn't win. I think people are confused when this term has been thrown out there. It's just jargon that's used in political science.
Ps. Examples of elections that do not have losers consent are ones that one side boycotts the election, or says the election is rigged.
So hypothetically if the entire unionist vote boycotted the poll and didn't turn up, would it be considered that there is no loser's consent because there wasn't a winner and a loser, just a winner? Are there any ramifications for the result in this case?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on June 16, 2023, 08:05:19 PM
Lads there will be no supermajority etc etc. As I already pointed out what the big play by unionism  is is that nationalists only get 40% of the vote. Last election was 44 but they will only include SDLP and SF just to be on the safe side. They will happily point out that we are nowhere near 50% +1. They will ignore the others as having any other opinion other than status quo IE Union. Peter Shirlow backed this up and he is big into his polling which is very worrying for someone with such influence to be so bias and one eyed. This is why the Alliance and greens need to be pressured more and more to come clean on their leanings. Even so called nationalist journalists are playing the OWC game ffs. The likes of Brendan Hughes claiming SDLP transfer to unionists more than SF based on one poll and completely against any actual electoral evidence. Alison Morris quoted UI support from a poll at 30% of course when the don't knows are taken out it jumps above 40% even on that dodgy poll but didn't mention it it means the viewer just assumes pro uk is on 70%. Why do they feel the need to manipulate the numbers just like unionists politicians. It's depressing and no-one ever ever challenges any of it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: andoireabu on June 16, 2023, 08:24:40 PM
I know that it will be 50%+1 as it should be, I was just interested in the point HiMucker made as I hadn't heard of losers consent before. There isn't a hope in hell of them being allowed a supermajority for this when there wasn't one for brexit
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on June 16, 2023, 08:51:14 PM
Losers consent is just a term Professor O'Leary threw out. But he clarified when interviewed by Caruthers, it is not a veto. Just that a United Ireland would require concessions to Unionists for it to work, similar to some of the elements GFA offered to Nationalists - so that is essentially right to be considered British, perhaps a continuation of British-Irish council. But that is up to London to agree to that. They might be just glad to see the back of them for good.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 09:27:38 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.

It's important that things are in place before anything is called..

Is it 7 years since Scotland had a referendum? Or have they not got the same thing in place?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: GiveItToTheShooters on June 16, 2023, 09:54:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.
Tough shit. That's the way it is.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 16, 2023, 10:41:29 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

Does anyone  know what they're   really voting for in  any election ?   discussions on  what a new Ireland . might look  like this.......  For example , let's say everyone  knows before a border poll that  VAT will be 10%,  sickness  benefit will be £300 a week and  doctor appts will be  free for everyone. 

We get a United Ireland , and 3 months later  VAT is bumped up to 30% , and  they start charging £50 for each Doctor  appt .  People thought they'd be  better off , and now  we have these price  rises. Can we then say , ah Jesus this new Ireland is s disaster...  people didn't know what they were voting for?  Nothing stays the  same
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on June 16, 2023, 11:21:00 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

Going with the 49 minority would be much much more unstable.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 17, 2023, 11:23:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

50% + 1 in a democratic decision is a majority

What are you suggesting is done instead?

You'd hope that lessons would have been leaned from Brexit and that a UI referendum would be 5 years in the planning

As for this notion that Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for ,that's on them,there were no shortage of information explaining to them what was in the offing if they voted to leave.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on June 17, 2023, 12:01:27 PM
Most of that was lies but I agree
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 16, 2023, 11:21:00 PM
Quote from: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

Going with the 49 minority would be much much more unstable.

Exactly. The 50+1 not being enough is a nonsense.

We are a few years away from it anyway.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 17, 2023, 12:28:18 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 17, 2023, 11:23:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

50% + 1 in a democratic decision is a majority

What are you suggesting is done instead?

You'd hope that lessons would have been leaned from Brexit and that a UI referendum would be 5 years in the planning

As for this notion that Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for ,that's on them,there were no shortage of information explaining to them what was in the offing if they voted to leave.

One of the things  that  was talked about pre-Brexit was the  possibility of Irish Sea border checks , and big Jeffrey  actually said  sure that wouldn't be a problem if they  had  those.  So ,  a lot of people look to their politicians for  guidance (madness, I know) on such  things before  voting

Do you honestly  think  all cards will be laid out  on the table pre-border poll?  Will all promises  and arrangements  be honoured  after the referendum? Of  course they won't.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 17, 2023, 12:39:29 PM
This will keep those that are sitting on the fence to stay with the status quo

The devil is in the detail and every argument from the unionists needs to be met with a detailed answer showing the benefits

If the only negative is being part of an United Ireland then that's fine, you can't blame them for it, but we'll not get 50+1 unless they can convince a percentage of those voters who aren't sure.

Population swings are great, it's not a cert though
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 17, 2023, 12:54:32 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on June 17, 2023, 12:28:18 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 17, 2023, 11:23:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

50% + 1 in a democratic decision is a majority

What are you suggesting is done instead?

You'd hope that lessons would have been leaned from Brexit and that a UI referendum would be 5 years in the planning

As for this notion that Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for ,that's on them,there were no shortage of information explaining to them what was in the offing if they voted to leave.

One of the things  that  was talked about pre-Brexit was the  possibility of Irish Sea border checks , and big Jeffrey  actually said  sure that wouldn't be a problem if they  had  those.  So ,  a lot of people look to their politicians for  guidance (madness, I know) on such  things before  voting

Do you honestly  think  all cards will be laid out  on the table pre-border poll?  Will all promises  and arrangements  be honoured  after the referendum? Of  course they won't.

If you take guidance from the likes of Jeffrey Paisley Bojo and Rees Mogg then the jokes on you

Even at the most basic level making it more difficult to trade with your nearest and biggest partners was never going to be biggest and brightest of ideas

With respect to a UI,there would have to be an agreement similar to the GFA which would have to agreed and signed by the British and Irish governments plus in all probability the US and the EU

Similar to the GFA if it is in the agreement,it would have to adhered to
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 17, 2023, 05:52:42 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 17, 2023, 12:54:32 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on June 17, 2023, 12:28:18 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 17, 2023, 11:23:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on June 16, 2023, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2023, 09:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2023, 08:53:48 PM
Would nationalists accept a 50%+1 against?

Yes, of course. With the demographics the 1 would have already died when the count took place, so just have another referedum after 7 years with plenty of clarification in the meantime.
50+1 would be too unstable . Brexit was won 52:48 when most voters had no idea what Brexit meant and it has been a clusterfuck that sucks political energy and goes nowhere.

50% + 1 in a democratic decision is a majority

What are you suggesting is done instead?

You'd hope that lessons would have been leaned from Brexit and that a UI referendum would be 5 years in the planning

As for this notion that Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for ,that's on them,there were no shortage of information explaining to them what was in the offing if they voted to leave.

One of the things  that  was talked about pre-Brexit was the  possibility of Irish Sea border checks , and big Jeffrey  actually said  sure that wouldn't be a problem if they  had  those.  So ,  a lot of people look to their politicians for  guidance (madness, I know) on such  things before  voting

Do you honestly  think  all cards will be laid out  on the table pre-border poll?  Will all promises  and arrangements  be honoured  after the referendum? Of  course they won't.

If you take guidance from the likes of Jeffrey Paisley Bojo and Rees Mogg then the jokes on you

Even at the most basic level making it more difficult to trade with your nearest and biggest partners was never going to be biggest and brightest of ideas

With respect to a UI,there would have to be an agreement similar to the GFA which would have to agreed and signed by the British and Irish governments plus in all probability the US and the EU

Similar to the GFA if it is in the agreement,it would have to adhered to

Well , yes, it's easy to  say now why   would  people vote or listen to  Boris Mogg etc  and  the other  Tories , given that,  they are the most corrupt shower of gangsters  that  were ever in power, and  that Brexit  doesn't seem to be going well. Or  Jeffrey, given that  unionism is probably in its   worst position since  partition. 

But many people do  believe the words or politicians all  the time. Be that in local council elections,  or national elections.  Nobody would vote if  that  wasnt the case
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 19, 2023, 09:20:26 AM
A referendum is not winnable at the moment and inspire of Unionism it will not be winnable until the Irish Government becomes proactive, which under FF/FG. they won't and SF will not form a Government in the ROI anytime soon as the rest will coalesce to stop it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 19, 2023, 10:37:42 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 19, 2023, 09:20:26 AM
A referendum is not winnable at the moment and inspire of Unionism it will not be winnable until the Irish Government becomes proactive, which under FF/FG. they won't and SF will not form a Government in the ROI anytime soon as the rest will coalesce to stop it.

The Irish government will not publicly step in until things are pretty clear, but I expect there is work in the background. The next FF leader after Martin might well take a much more proactive view, to help ward off SF and perhaps to distinguish FF from FG. What is needed is a clear nationalist plurality in the next NI election.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on June 20, 2023, 10:14:44 PM
Irish gov providing £38m to Magee that will fund 1500 new university places. In addition to the nursing funding and before that Erasmus funding, these surely are all steps on the path to a United Ireland. Contrasts with Unionists blocking development of Derry campus in 1960s.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-65953981
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 21, 2023, 11:16:20 PM
Definitely worth a listen

David McWilliams Podcast

The Unionist Strategy against a United Ireland ....Poverty

https://open.spotify.com/episode/21gxBKirO4AEHr0wbG1Pkd?si=__CA_cPmT36YKdiBfX5lOw
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Eamonnca1 on June 21, 2023, 11:33:29 PM
McWilliams is married to a northern Protestant woman and knows the mentality of them all right. I'm sure his in-laws have seen to that. Always an insightful bit of commentary.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on June 22, 2023, 09:33:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 21, 2023, 11:33:29 PM
McWilliams is married to a northern Protestant woman and knows the mentality of them all right. I'm sure his in-laws have seen to that. Always an insightful bit of commentary.

McWilliams is an entertainer first and an economist second. Much like Brolly the Wally, they're in showbusiness. If you want to get paid for talks and panel gigs you gotta say stuff to get you in the limelight.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on June 22, 2023, 02:13:34 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 21, 2023, 11:16:20 PM
Definitely worth a listen

David McWilliams Podcast

The Unionist Strategy against a United Ireland ....Poverty

https://open.spotify.com/episode/21gxBKirO4AEHr0wbG1Pkd?si=__CA_cPmT36YKdiBfX5lOw
Definitely worth a listen, though skip the preamble.  Instead of driving a wedge betweeen north and south Brexit has built bigger bridges. Trade both ways has increase by 50%  in just one year, from 2020 to 2021.

At these current growth rates, after a couple of years the economic relationship with the south will easily surpass NI's  economic trade with Britain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 02:39:42 PM
Quote from: trailer on June 22, 2023, 09:33:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 21, 2023, 11:33:29 PM
McWilliams is married to a northern Protestant woman and knows the mentality of them all right. I'm sure his in-laws have seen to that. Always an insightful bit of commentary.

McWilliams is an entertainer first and an economist second. Much like Brolly the Wally, they're in showbusiness. If you want to get paid for talks and panel gigs you gotta say stuff to get you in the limelight.


The point of Northern Ireland is not prosperity. Right now, among unionist politicians, the central strategy seems to centre on the immiseration of the people in order to inflate the likely future cost of any united Ireland, so as to scare off lukewarm nationalists of "middle Ireland". How else can you interpret the oft-heard expression "The South can't afford us" other than "We" are going to remain impoverished as a negotiating strategy? It doesn't matter what sort of poverty we endure as long as it's red, white and blue poverty. It's worthy of Flann O'Brien.

However, this tactic is not working because the story of the past 25 years since the signing of the Belfast Agreement has been the quiet, modest but obvious success of the integration of the island economy. Commerce always finds a way. Thirty thousand people cross the Border every day to go to work. Since Brexit, and through the Covid years, cross-Border trading has increased. In 2021, Ireland exported €3.7 billion to Northern Ireland and imported €4 billion, a significant increase from 2020, when exports stood at about €2.5 billion. Imports from Northern Ireland to the Republic also increased, Central Statistics Office (CSO) data shows.
Overall, exports to Northern Ireland as a proportion of all Irish exports to the UK increased from 16 per cent to 23 per cent in the past two years. Similarly, the share of UK imports coming from Northern Ireland has shot up. Politics might be trying to create borders, but trade is doing its own thing.
The orientation of trade in Northern Ireland has been transformed by Brexit. The Republic is Northern Ireland's single largest export market, accounting for 40 per cent of total exports outside exports to Britain. Before Brexit, Northern Ireland exports to Britain were 3.7 times greater than exports to the Republic; now that figure is only 2.5 times greater. Trade between both parts of the island is flourishing. The value of exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic increased by 23 per cent between 2020 and 2021, according to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA); a much larger increase than the change in total exports.
Brexit is not a wedge between both parts of the island. Rather, it has proved to be a bridge – precisely what the protocol is designed to do. Northern Ireland has the best of both worlds, one foot in the EU and one in the UK.

But there is a long way to go.
The Troubles are estimated to have reduced Northern Ireland's GDP by up to 10 per cent. However, in the quarter century since the Belfast Agreement, a real divergence emerged between the North and South. Economic indicators make it abundantly clear that the peace dividend went to the South.
From 1998 to 2021, the Northern Ireland economy expanded by about 38 per cent in real terms, considerably less than the Republic. Even taking the GNI (gross national income) measure, which strips out the distorting effects of multinationals on the economy, the Irish economy has grown by about 83 per cent in real terms, more than double the rate of the North.

Central to this economic underperformance of the North relative to the Republic is its poor productivity performance. Productivity is the key to driving improvements in living standards, and Northern Ireland has the worst productivity (measured in terms of output per hours worked) of any UK region, about 17 per cent below the UK average as a whole. (The UK itself is among the worst performing economies in the OECD.) In contrast, productivity per worker is about 40 per cent higher in the Republic relative to the North. Wages can't rise when productivity is so low, which explains why wages are so much lower in the North, running on average about 64 per cent of those in Ireland.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.

How many southern nationalists want to become British if the benefits were better? None!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: dec on June 22, 2023, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.

How many southern nationalists want to become British if the benefits were better? None!

Exactly. Even in the 50s and 60s when the southern economy was so bad that there was massive emigration, there was never any push to rejoin the UK.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on June 22, 2023, 03:21:58 PM
Unionists won't vote for an All Ireland outcome.
If they did they wouldn't be "Unionists".
Nationalists and middle grounders need to be working out what a UI will looked like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on June 22, 2023, 03:24:09 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

And a fair number of people who just live in NI and who do not really relate to the union at all except that it is there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on June 22, 2023, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

As a percentage of the NI population those who term themselves as Unionist are dwindling, so as much as it would be good to have as many onboard going into a UI, it's not a requirement at the minute and will be even less of a requirement as time goes by.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:01:11 PM
"We were poor but we were happy"

I read that like hearing the sash my father wore  ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D

Poor,Happy and British
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 06:11:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:01:11 PM
"We were poor but we were happy"

I read that like hearing the sash my father wore  ;D

Coming up to the right time of year too MR2.  :)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D

Poor,Happy and British

You're saying that like there's no food banks or plenty of affordable housing in the south
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 07:17:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D

Poor,Happy and British

You're saying that like there's no food banks or plenty of affordable housing in the south


And that's McWilliams point

We in the south should be exploiting Northern Ireland with its cheap housing and cheap labour for the good of an all Ireland economy

" But here is the opportunity. The Republic has too much demand and not enough supply; the North has too much supply and not enough demand. Integrate further and gains accrue to both jurisdictions.

Take commercial rents, which are far lower in the North. Prime rents in Belfast are £23 (€26.73) per sq ft as opposed to €65 in Dublin. Surely this gap can be bridged as companies move? The average monthly rent in the North is £773 (about €900), as opposed to the average rent in the Republic, which stands at €1,750 – almost double that in Northern Ireland. The average cost of a home in Northern Ireland is £197,800 (€229,902); it is €308,497 in the South."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on June 22, 2023, 07:38:19 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 22, 2023, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

As a percentage of the NI population those who term themselves as Unionist are dwindling, so as much as it would be good to have as many onboard going into a UI, it's not a requirement at the minute and will be even less of a requirement as time goes by.

Do you mean  those  with a unionist identity or  those who vote for  unionist parties?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 08:07:04 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 07:17:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D

Poor,Happy and British

You're saying that like there's no food banks or plenty of affordable housing in the south


And that's McWilliams point

We in the south should be exploiting Northern Ireland with its cheap housing and cheap labour for the good of an all Ireland economy

" But here is the opportunity. The Republic has too much demand and not enough supply; the North has too much supply and not enough demand. Integrate further and gains accrue to both jurisdictions.

Take commercial rents, which are far lower in the North. Prime rents in Belfast are £23 (€26.73) per sq ft as opposed to €65 in Dublin. Surely this gap can be bridged as companies move? The average monthly rent in the North is £773 (about €900), as opposed to the average rent in the Republic, which stands at €1,750 – almost double that in Northern Ireland. The average cost of a home in Northern Ireland is £197,800 (€229,902); it is €308,497 in the South."

What's the average wage of each?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on June 22, 2023, 10:28:18 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 07:17:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D

Poor,Happy and British

You're saying that like there's no food banks or plenty of affordable housing in the south


And that's McWilliams point

We in the south should be exploiting Northern Ireland with its cheap housing and cheap labour for the good of an all Ireland economy

" But here is the opportunity. The Republic has too much demand and not enough supply; the North has too much supply and not enough demand. Integrate further and gains accrue to both jurisdictions.

Take commercial rents, which are far lower in the North. Prime rents in Belfast are £23 (€26.73) per sq ft as opposed to €65 in Dublin. Surely this gap can be bridged as companies move? The average monthly rent in the North is £773 (about €900), as opposed to the average rent in the Republic, which stands at €1,750 – almost double that in Northern Ireland. The average cost of a home in Northern Ireland is £197,800 (€229,902); it is €308,497 in the South."
From a personal perspective it is a great case for live in the North, work in the South.
From a business perspective it is a great case for having an office in the North.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on June 23, 2023, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?
Whatever the timeframe, unity will only happen organically, in my view as my generation dies of and the unionist middle ground see more and more benefits of some form of UI (probably federal to start) it will come into being. It will be helped by the decline of the UK as a global economy and the mindset of English political parties. A referendum is not winnable at the moment. People need something positive to vote for.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on June 28, 2023, 12:34:33 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 07:17:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D

Poor,Happy and British

You're saying that like there's no food banks or plenty of affordable housing in the south


And that's McWilliams point

We in the south should be exploiting Northern Ireland with its cheap housing and cheap labour for the good of an all Ireland economy

" But here is the opportunity. The Republic has too much demand and not enough supply; the North has too much supply and not enough demand. Integrate further and gains accrue to both jurisdictions.

Take commercial rents, which are far lower in the North. Prime rents in Belfast are £23 (€26.73) per sq ft as opposed to €65 in Dublin. Surely this gap can be bridged as companies move? The average monthly rent in the North is £773 (about €900), as opposed to the average rent in the Republic, which stands at €1,750 – almost double that in Northern Ireland. The average cost of a home in Northern Ireland is £197,800 (€229,902); it is €308,497 in the South."
I bet you that MR2 has not listened to the podcast :D

McWilliams' point was the DUP  policy is to keep NI economically deprived,  by being anti protocol, anti democratic over and above relative economic paradise, i.e. being in the UK and at the same time in the EU, just because they claimed such an arrangement would threaten their British identity.  And the DUP did not care one jot how a hard border would affect the social and economic lives of Irish people over and above their fixation with the necessity to have a hard border.
McWilliams' podcast was about how Brexit has actually strengthened Irish economic unity beyond anyone's prediction,  instead of the DUP's wet dream of Brexit driving a wedge between north and south.

MR2, have you anything to comment on the  McWillams podcast? 
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 28, 2023, 10:29:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on June 28, 2023, 12:34:33 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 07:17:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D

Poor,Happy and British

You're saying that like there's no food banks or plenty of affordable housing in the south


And that's McWilliams point

We in the south should be exploiting Northern Ireland with its cheap housing and cheap labour for the good of an all Ireland economy

" But here is the opportunity. The Republic has too much demand and not enough supply; the North has too much supply and not enough demand. Integrate further and gains accrue to both jurisdictions.

Take commercial rents, which are far lower in the North. Prime rents in Belfast are £23 (€26.73) per sq ft as opposed to €65 in Dublin. Surely this gap can be bridged as companies move? The average monthly rent in the North is £773 (about €900), as opposed to the average rent in the Republic, which stands at €1,750 – almost double that in Northern Ireland. The average cost of a home in Northern Ireland is £197,800 (€229,902); it is €308,497 in the South."
I bet you that MR2 has not listened to the podcast :D

McWilliams' point was the DUP  policy is to keep NI economically deprived,  by being anti protocol, anti democratic over and above relative economic paradise, i.e. being in the UK and at the same time in the EU, just because they claimed such an arrangement would threaten their British identity.  And the DUP did not care one jot how a hard border would affect the social and economic lives of Irish people over and above their fixation with the necessity to have a hard border.
McWilliams' podcast was about how Brexit has actually strengthened Irish economic unity beyond anyone's prediction,  instead of the DUP's wet dream of Brexit driving a wedge between north and south.

MR2, have you anything to comment on the  McWillams podcast?

I don't need to listen to someone talking shite, you do plenty here.

No one is saying that economically that a UI that is part of the EU is not better than being stuck in the shit set up the UK has found itself in after Brexit/pandemic and successive governments that have run the place into the ground, a blind man on a galloping horse can see that.

The potential voters won't listen to a Dublin ex banker telling them that, it needs to be from within that community. But identity over economics will prevail unfortunately. Though the Unionists would like his views on Israel, he's "just somebody who is prepared to see an Israeli point of view"
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on June 28, 2023, 11:49:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 28, 2023, 10:29:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on June 28, 2023, 12:34:33 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 07:17:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: marty34 on June 22, 2023, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on June 22, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 22, 2023, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 22, 2023, 02:46:02 PM
Think of it in 'their' shoes, its not difficult, they are British and want to stay British, and you can throw every benefit at it.
Who do you mean by 'their'?
Unionism is a broad family - Loyalists, traditional Unionists, pragmatic Unionists, Catholic Unionists, cultural Unionists, agnostic/de facto Unionists (eg Alliance).

While every one of those need to be welcomed into any new Irish state, it's only those that form part of the middle ground that need persuading.

By the very term unionist they want to remain part of the union, You can at the very least see where they are coming from? You'd never willing want to stay in the union..

The closer it gets to the border question/poll/deliberation/implementation the place will be completely divided..

What are the timeframes for this? 10/20/30 years?

Best to not upset them and to leave NI as it is then

Let's run the place into the ground so that the south can't afford us but we will be poor, British and happy seem to be their singular strategy

No wonder they are so against the Protocol because it is doing the opposite

We were poor but we were happy.  ;D

Poor,Happy and British

You're saying that like there's no food banks or plenty of affordable housing in the south


And that's McWilliams point

We in the south should be exploiting Northern Ireland with its cheap housing and cheap labour for the good of an all Ireland economy

" But here is the opportunity. The Republic has too much demand and not enough supply; the North has too much supply and not enough demand. Integrate further and gains accrue to both jurisdictions.

Take commercial rents, which are far lower in the North. Prime rents in Belfast are £23 (€26.73) per sq ft as opposed to €65 in Dublin. Surely this gap can be bridged as companies move? The average monthly rent in the North is £773 (about €900), as opposed to the average rent in the Republic, which stands at €1,750 – almost double that in Northern Ireland. The average cost of a home in Northern Ireland is £197,800 (€229,902); it is €308,497 in the South."
I bet you that MR2 has not listened to the podcast :D

McWilliams' point was the DUP  policy is to keep NI economically deprived,  by being anti protocol, anti democratic over and above relative economic paradise, i.e. being in the UK and at the same time in the EU, just because they claimed such an arrangement would threaten their British identity.  And the DUP did not care one jot how a hard border would affect the social and economic lives of Irish people over and above their fixation with the necessity to have a hard border.
McWilliams' podcast was about how Brexit has actually strengthened Irish economic unity beyond anyone's prediction,  instead of the DUP's wet dream of Brexit driving a wedge between north and south.

MR2, have you anything to comment on the  McWillams podcast?

I don't need to listen to someone talking shite, you do plenty here.

No one is saying that economically that a UI that is part of the EU is not better than being stuck in the shit set up the UK has found itself in after Brexit/pandemic and successive governments that have run the place into the ground, a blind man on a galloping horse can see that.

The potential voters won't listen to a Dublin ex banker telling them that, it needs to be from within that community. But identity over economics will prevail unfortunately. Though the Unionists would like his views on Israel, he's "just somebody who is prepared to see an Israeli point of view"

Firstly you're replying to a podcast topic without actually having listened to it and yet claim it's shite  ;D

QuoteNo one is saying that economically that a UI that is part of the EU is not better than being stuck in the shit set up the UK has found itself in after Brexit/pandemic and successive governments that have run the place into the ground, a blind man on a galloping horse can see that.
McWilliams did not say that or anything like that in the podcast.
He talked  only about  NI and referring to facts and figures, the remarkable increase in economic trade since Brexit  between North and South, when the opposite was the DUP desired effect
But of course you probably knew all those facts and figures before they were even released ::)
That economic ties with the south have increased many fold,  despite DUP identify politics and their aims to decrease NI's economic ties/dependencies with the south and increase same with Britain.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 28, 2023, 12:06:27 PM
You and others have put up enough information from his podcast for me to asses that.

Is there other information that you have left out, that will enlighten me  on why any unionist or Prod for that matter to change their identity or become part of a different country?

The growth and benefits of having the unique trade set up from brexit in the North can be used better, but this thread is about opening up the discussion on a UI and if I do have the time to listen to a podcast I'll give it a whirl, though its pointless with regards to actually getting people to think about changing their identity or even discussing it
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 11:37:01 AM
Some of ye might have access to or could post  entire article

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/new-ireland-is-now-inevitable-says-dup-founding-member/a1243025765.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: trailer on September 04, 2023, 12:12:04 PM
He's a Paisleyite, a founding member of the DUP, a former special adviser to Nigel Dodds, and a leading evangelical Protestant, but Wallace Thompson now believes a form of Irish unity is inevitable — and he's willing to consider it.
Thompson has had many lives. As well as having been at the heart of unionist politics and fundamentalist Christianity, he is a respected figure in the Independent Orange Order and a former NIO civil servant who drafted a key speech for the Queen.

'New Ireland' inevitable says DUP founding member Wallace Thompson

But the final years of the 70-year-old's life may be the most influential. The unionist veteran is an individual of both rare honesty — honesty which has got him in trouble — and exceptional complexity. And now, after a lifetime of staunch unionism, this man who at university was part of the same circle as Sammy Wilson, Jim Allister, Edgar Graham and other leading unionists, is thinking seriously about Irish unity.

Wallace Thompson and Gregory Campbell
Wallace Thompson and Gregory Campbell

Looking back, he says: "Unionism as a philosophy probably was always in many ways doomed because of Ireland's nature, the fact that the north was carved off from the south... now you've got a position where, do you partition again?

"Do you accept that demographic change is such that we have to run to the walls and again shut the gates? Or do we recognise that we can't keep doing this?

"We need to recognise that there are fundamental issues that have always been there really — from centuries ago — that we need to now recognise and try to address."

There have been unionists who have become open to considering a united Ireland, but they've all been moderates. Not one of them comes close to Thompson's pedigree as a staunch traditional unionist.

Polling points to limited progress by nationalism in the years of post-Brexit chaos, and there is a danger in extrapolating too much from one example. But it is also possible that beneath the polling numbers even some of those saying they support the Union are pondering 'Plan B'.

It's not the first time I've been in Thompson's modest semi-detached east Belfast house. I was here 12 years ago, mostly to ask him about religious controversies.

He was then a leading figure in the Caleb Foundation, a pressure group lobbying against relaxing Sunday trading restrictions, for Creationism, and against abortion. The British Centre for Science Education hyperbolically accused it of peddling "Christian fascism".

Thompson insists Caleb is not dead, but that it is now a small group which has "faded from the limelight".

His other organisation, the Evangelical Protestant Society, is staunchly opposed to the Catholic Church. I put it to him that many will see this as simple anti-Catholic bigotry involving the sort of people who would like to go back to discrimination.

Unsurprisingly, he rejects that. But there's a depth of feeling to his words: "I honestly would say that I have no anti-Catholic views at all; in fact, I have many Roman Catholic friends who I hold in the highest esteem.

"I respect their religious views; I respect their right to hold them; I disagree with them and I would discuss with them [theology]... anti-Catholicism's a terrible thing, when you see sectarianism in its naked form as we have seen in this country. I have spoken out about that; I've condemned the attacks on Roman Catholic churches, I've condemned the sectarian singing in an Orange Hall... there's a big difference between that and a difference of religious views."

He adds: "Roman Catholic people shouldn't in any way fear the likes of myself. The main danger is that naked sectarianism that's borne by godlessness."

He attracted intense criticism after going on Joe Duffy's Liveline programme on RTE radio in 2008. When a caller asked if the Pope was the "prince of darkness", he replied that he wasn't, but he was the antichrist, something he thought was theologically correct "but it was like a red rag to a bull".


He still believes that, but "I reprove myself a little bit because I feel the tone of what I said and the blunt way that it was said, created a degree of offence which I wouldn't now do".

As this man who stood by Ian Paisley's side from the outset mellows, he worries about the abrasiveness on social media and longs for grace in public debate.

He has sought to lead from the front. When Martin McGuinness lay dying in 2017, he wrote on Facebook: "It is obvious that Martin McGuinness is seriously ill. There are those rejoicing in this and hoping that he suffers a painful and lingering death.

"I have been around a long time and I'm under no illusions about Martin McGuinness... however, if we profess to be evangelical Protestants, we need to reflect upon the words of Christ who said... 'Love your enemies'".

Comments like that are rarely heard from unionists — even deeply religious ones. "That came from the heart," he says. "There's a need for us to show compassion."

Born in pre-Troubles Ballymoney in 1953, Thompson recalls an idyllic childhood. "We were an ordinary Protestant family," he says, and not especially political.

As a 15-year-old, he recalls the seminal Civil Rights march in Londonderry where police attacked marchers. His view then, informed by his father's reaction, was that "the world was collapsing around us".

There is a fascinating glimpse of where he might have gone when Thompson recalls going to hear the reformist Stormont Prime Minister Terence O'Neill speak in the mid-1960s.

"I thought in those years before the Troubles broke out, the man was talking a lot of sense. But then when the Troubles did break out... I began to feel that this is a serious business and I was drawn towards Ian Paisley politically, initially, but just fascinated by the man... my faith was kindled in an evangelical sense through Ian Paisley."

He moved to Belfast to go to Queen's University, then a hotbed of unionist, nationalist and radical politics.

The modern DUP, along with Sinn Féin, is part of the Northern Ireland establishment but it wasn't always thus. Initially Paisley's Protestant Unionist Party and then the DUP existed to harass the Official Unionists.

"We would have been very anti-establishment," Thompson recalls.

After working for the DUP in its early years, he joined the civil service, ending up in the NIO. Some unionists asked him: "What are you doing working for that bunch of traitors?" Only some of them were joking.

He drafted the speech given by the Queen in 2000 when she awarded the George Cross to the RUC. Some of his words, uttered by the Queen, are now in the RUC memorial garden.

Seven years later, he entered Stormont in a very different role — as adviser to DUP minister Nigel Dodds. In doing so, this traditionalist helped give credibility to Paisley's rapprochement with Martin McGuinness.

In 2016, he voted for Brexit and "would still vote to leave", but not if it meant an Irish Sea border. He admits Brexit went "belly-up" and "we're in a mess".

His late Fermanagh mother-in-law voted to remain because "she thought the border issue would be a problem", but "I lived up here and you weren't near the border so you didn't think any of that through".

Wallace Thompson and Jim Wells
Wallace Thompson and Jim Wells

He accepts "more thought should have been given to the whole thing", with maybe a weighted majority, but still believes "an arrangement could have been made" with the EU.

In 2019, after Boris Johnson betrayed the DUP, Thompson said it was "almost enough to make me question the value of the Union". I remember being astonished by the raw honesty of those words.

"That was from the heart. We were like the unwanted child in the house," he says starkly.

"If anything, my view since then has been [strengthened]; I do wonder at the future of the Union and I think we need to waken up and recognise that. The emperor has no clothes."

He says that recently at the Apprentice Boys' parade in Derry the consensus was that the DUP should not return to Stormont until the sea border goes.

But he says: "Those who say 'don't go back' need to set out: How long are we away for – 10 years, 20 years, 50 years... forever? And if that's the case, what's the alternative?

"Someone said going back to the stand taken by our fathers in 1912. But that involved compromise; they didn't end up with what they wanted."

He likened it to unionism isolating itself after the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement, but stressed it was far worse now because the Irish economy is stronger and unionism is weaker.


He hears unionists privately thinking radically about the future, "but there are so few people willing to say that publicly".

Thompson unhesitatingly regards himself as both British and Irish. He is tied to Britain by nostalgia, by a "deep-seated thing in your psyche that you were born and brought up within unionism" – but above all by the religious freedom which he cherishes.

Yet he also says: "I was born an Irishman. And people in my community again say 'oh no, no, no, we aren't Irish' – but we are Irishmen and it's nonsense to believe we're not. We need to rediscover some of that Irishness. We've washed our hands of it completely. A hundred years ago, our forefathers were happy to be Irish and to be seen to be Irish."

Does he fear Irish unity in the way he did as a young man?

"No. I think it's a different animal now," he says. His fear then was of "Rome rule" repressing Protestantism.

He still isn't entirely convinced that his faith and Britishness would be safe in a united Ireland and worries about it being "easy to come out with honeyed words" but then abandon pledges.

"Nationalism as a philosophy has a blind spot about how deeply held some of those things are to us... I would be concerned that we would [in a united Ireland] lose stuff; lose some of the key elements of our identity."

He is prepared to sit down with those planning Irish unity to try to make it a more appealing idea to unionists — a highly atypical position within unionism.

"I think we are in an inevitable move towards that — when it comes, I don't know, but there's an inevitability in my mind that we are moving towards some form of new Ireland. Hopefully, new and not absorption... but we need to ask the questions and we need to ask for answers and we need to talk to people.

"That shouldn't mean then you're thinking that we're suddenly going down that road. We might not. We might decide [based on] all the evidence that we don't want to go down that road.

"But we're closing our eyes and pretending there's no problem. This is the problem with unionism — we're in denial; constant denial.

"To talk to these groups that are calling for a new Ireland to me is not an indication of weakness; it's an indication of strength."

DUP founding member Wallace Thompson at his east Belfast home after being interviewed by the Belfast Telegraph. Photo: Kevin Scott
DUP founding member Wallace Thompson at his east Belfast home after being interviewed by the Belfast Telegraph. Photo: Kevin Scott

However, he says that Ireland's Future hasn't contacted him. He believes talking is crucial because "the history of Ireland is just a patchwork quilt of misunderstandings and misconceptions where it's all just black and white — or orange and green — but it's not".

He stresses that after discussing unity, he might decide that he still supports the Union.

He says that some unionists will view him as a "Lundy" but that "when you talk to people privately... they'll say we need to recognise that these are realities that we have to face".

When he makes comments like these, there are people in unionist parties, the loyal orders and churches who say to him: "You're right — but we can't say it."

He says that Paisley's move to accept power-sharing with Sinn Féin was "hugely significant" in his newfound willingness to consider Irish unity.

In the broad arc of the history of Northern Ireland, it is astonishing that Ian Paisley — the firebrand scourge of every unionist leader who sought to compromise with nationalism — would play a part in persuading one of his most loyal followers to consider Irish unity.

As Thompson says, history is rarely entirely black and white.

Coming back full circle to his youth, I ask if he ever wonders if O'Neill or Faulkner had succeeded as reformists that both Northern Ireland and unionism might be in a better place.

"I do wonder at that. Sadly, O'Neill was patrician and condescending in his attitude; he was patronising and it didn't work. Roman Catholics just thought that they were being taken for granted and treated as just those who could be turned into Protestants if you gave them a colour TV or whatever."

He goes on: "I believe that if Brian Faulkner had been in position earlier that it might have been easier to get reforms through at an earlier stage and it would have settled things down quite a bit. But there was a certain inevitability about what happened; it just took off and continued to grow. We'll never know, really."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
Pity more of them couldn't "come out" and say similar.
Anyway as I said many times before
A Confederation of Ireland with 2 Home Rule areas i.e the present day 6 and 26 Cos.
Dual Nationality/Citizenship for those in the 6 who'd want it.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on September 04, 2023, 02:45:18 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
Pity more of them couldn't "come out" and say similar.
Anyway as I said many times before
A Confederation of Ireland with 2 Home Rule areas i.e the present day 6 and 26 Cos.
Dual Nationality/Citizenship for those in the 6 who'd want it.

I'm not  convinced of that.  It's still a version  of partition . Rules/laws in the south  might not  apply to the north and   vice versa . Look at how unionists  are behaving with that centenary  stone at Stormont.  The health /education/roads  in the north are  in the gutter , and they're stirring  the shite about a stone. You think this  sort of behaviour will stop in a UI? It will only  increase.  Placating unionists will be a never-ending  assignment   by the  Dublin government . They'll have to be seen to fund all sorts of things for  unionists , to show that they are  accommodating them in a UI. But no matter what they (Dublin)  do,  it will never be enough .
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on September 04, 2023, 02:56:59 PM
Yeah unfortunately I agree with this.

Also unfortunately I don't think you can cut out OO / apprentice boys / bonfires etc but you can't constantly placate at every drop of a hat either.

As you say things are in the gutter. Heaton Harris or whatever you call him has cranked it up now too basically saying throwing money at things can't just be expected now and it's always been used as a sticking plaster but no more.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on September 04, 2023, 03:13:33 PM
The PSNI boy Byrne has resigned.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 04, 2023, 02:45:18 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
Pity more of them couldn't "come out" and say similar.
Anyway as I said many times before
A Confederation of Ireland with 2 Home Rule areas i.e the present day 6 and 26 Cos.
Dual Nationality/Citizenship for those in the 6 who'd want it.

I'm not  convinced of that.  It's still a version  of partition . Rules/laws in the south  might not  apply to the north and   vice versa . Look at how unionists  are behaving with that centenary  stone at Stormont.  The health /education/roads  in the north are  in the gutter , and they're stirring  the shite about a stone. You think this  sort of behaviour will stop in a UI? It will only  increase.  Placating unionists will be a never-ending  assignment   by the  Dublin government . They'll have to be seen to fund all sorts of things for  unionists , to show that they are  accommodating them in a UI. But no matter what they (Dublin)  do,  it will never be enough .
I hope you won't be campaigning for the UI side in any Referendum :(
The Confederate Government would be in charge of all the big ticket items while the Home Rule Parliaments would look after more localised stuff.
Belgium and Switzerland are well able to operate with different local laws in different areas.
If I want to get planning permission in Roscommon I may have different rules to someone in Tyrone but we'll both get by fine.
Same with vehicle registrations, bilingual signage etc.

The New Ireland won't be just a case of incorporating the 6 into the 26 like German reunification  nor will it be extending Crossmaglen across the 32 Counties.
Theres the need to get "others/non aligned" to vote for a New Ireland as its unlikely the Nationalist/Catholic vote will ever hit 51%.
Wonder will any of the pro UI Parties or politicians contact "new Lundy" chap to discuss the issue?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 04, 2023, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 04, 2023, 02:45:18 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
Pity more of them couldn't "come out" and say similar.
Anyway as I said many times before
A Confederation of Ireland with 2 Home Rule areas i.e the present day 6 and 26 Cos.
Dual Nationality/Citizenship for those in the 6 who'd want it.

I'm not  convinced of that.  It's still a version  of partition . Rules/laws in the south  might not  apply to the north and   vice versa . Look at how unionists  are behaving with that centenary  stone at Stormont.  The health /education/roads  in the north are  in the gutter , and they're stirring  the shite about a stone. You think this  sort of behaviour will stop in a UI? It will only  increase.  Placating unionists will be a never-ending  assignment   by the  Dublin government . They'll have to be seen to fund all sorts of things for  unionists , to show that they are  accommodating them in a UI. But no matter what they (Dublin)  do,  it will never be enough .
I hope you won't be campaigning for the UI side in any Referendum :(
The Confederate Government would be in charge of all the big ticket items while the Home Rule Parliaments would look after more localised stuff.
Belgium and Switzerland are well able to operate with different local laws in different areas.
If I want to get planning permission in Roscommon I may have different rules to someone in Tyrone but we'll both get by fine.
Same with vehicle registrations, bilingual signage etc.

The New Ireland won't be just a case of incorporating the 6 into the 26 like German reunification  nor will it be extending Crossmaglen across the 32 Counties.
Theres the need to get "others/non aligned" to vote for a New Ireland as its unlikely the Nationalist/Catholic vote will ever hit 51%.
Wonder will any of the pro UI Parties or politicians contact "new Lundy" chap to discuss the issue?
I wouldn't rule anything out. A certain % of Unionists will move to England or Scotland , driven by emotion. I wouldn't expect 100% of Loyalists to apply for Irish passports. I
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on September 04, 2023, 06:59:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 04, 2023, 02:45:18 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
Pity more of them couldn't "come out" and say similar.
Anyway as I said many times before
A Confederation of Ireland with 2 Home Rule areas i.e the present day 6 and 26 Cos.
Dual Nationality/Citizenship for those in the 6 who'd want it.

I'm not  convinced of that.  It's still a version  of partition . Rules/laws in the south  might not  apply to the north and   vice versa . Look at how unionists  are behaving with that centenary  stone at Stormont.  The health /education/roads  in the north are  in the gutter , and they're stirring  the shite about a stone. You think this  sort of behaviour will stop in a UI? It will only  increase.  Placating unionists will be a never-ending  assignment   by the  Dublin government . They'll have to be seen to fund all sorts of things for  unionists , to show that they are  accommodating them in a UI. But no matter what they (Dublin)  do,  it will never be enough .
I hope you won't be campaigning for the UI side in any Referendum :(
The Confederate Government would be in charge of all the big ticket items while the Home Rule Parliaments would look after more localised stuff.

Like they have  been  doing in Stormont since the  GFA? The only thing  they've ever "looked after"  is a pay rise for themselves . They  couldn't look after a goldfish between  them all

Quote
Belgium and Switzerland are well able to operate with different local laws in different areas.
If I want to get planning permission in Roscommon I may have different rules to someone in Tyrone but we'll both get by fine.
Same with vehicle registrations, bilingual signage etc.

Yes ,  that  seems to be going  well  at the minute

QuoteThe New Ireland won't be just a case of incorporating the 6 into the 26 like German reunification  nor will it be extending Crossmaglen across the 32 Counties.
Theres the need to get "others/non aligned" to vote for a New Ireland as its unlikely the Nationalist/Catholic vote will ever hit 51%.
Wonder will any of the pro UI Parties or politicians contact "new Lundy" chap to discuss the issue?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Mourne Red on September 07, 2023, 08:36:57 PM
Leo goes to one WolfeTones gig and he's coming out with there will be a United Ireland in his lifetime.. Some boy
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on September 07, 2023, 10:44:52 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 04, 2023, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 04, 2023, 02:45:18 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
Pity more of them couldn't "come out" and say similar.
Anyway as I said many times before
A Confederation of Ireland with 2 Home Rule areas i.e the present day 6 and 26 Cos.
Dual Nationality/Citizenship for those in the 6 who'd want it.

I'm not  convinced of that.  It's still a version  of partition . Rules/laws in the south  might not  apply to the north and   vice versa . Look at how unionists  are behaving with that centenary  stone at Stormont.  The health /education/roads  in the north are  in the gutter , and they're stirring  the shite about a stone. You think this  sort of behaviour will stop in a UI? It will only  increase.  Placating unionists will be a never-ending  assignment   by the  Dublin government . They'll have to be seen to fund all sorts of things for  unionists , to show that they are  accommodating them in a UI. But no matter what they (Dublin)  do,  it will never be enough .
I hope you won't be campaigning for the UI side in any Referendum :(
The Confederate Government would be in charge of all the big ticket items while the Home Rule Parliaments would look after more localised stuff.
Belgium and Switzerland are well able to operate with different local laws in different areas.
If I want to get planning permission in Roscommon I may have different rules to someone in Tyrone but we'll both get by fine.
Same with vehicle registrations, bilingual signage etc.

The New Ireland won't be just a case of incorporating the 6 into the 26 like German reunification  nor will it be extending Crossmaglen across the 32 Counties.
Theres the need to get "others/non aligned" to vote for a New Ireland as its unlikely the Nationalist/Catholic vote will ever hit 51%.
Wonder will any of the pro UI Parties or politicians contact "new Lundy" chap to discuss the issue?
I wouldn't rule anything out. A certain % of Unionists will move to England or Scotland , driven by emotion. I wouldn't expect 100% of Loyalists to apply for Irish passports. I

Arlene said she'd move!
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on September 08, 2023, 10:13:46 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 04, 2023, 02:45:18 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
Pity more of them couldn't "come out" and say similar.
Anyway as I said many times before
A Confederation of Ireland with 2 Home Rule areas i.e the present day 6 and 26 Cos.
Dual Nationality/Citizenship for those in the 6 who'd want it.

I'm not  convinced of that.  It's still a version  of partition . Rules/laws in the south  might not  apply to the north and   vice versa . Look at how unionists  are behaving with that centenary  stone at Stormont.  The health /education/roads  in the north are  in the gutter , and they're stirring  the shite about a stone. You think this  sort of behaviour will stop in a UI? It will only  increase.  Placating unionists will be a never-ending  assignment   by the  Dublin government . They'll have to be seen to fund all sorts of things for  unionists , to show that they are  accommodating them in a UI. But no matter what they (Dublin)  do,  it will never be enough .
I hope you won't be campaigning for the UI side in any Referendum :(
The Confederate Government would be in charge of all the big ticket items while the Home Rule Parliaments would look after more localised stuff.
Belgium and Switzerland are well able to operate with different local laws in different areas.
If I want to get planning permission in Roscommon I may have different rules to someone in Tyrone but we'll both get by fine.
Same with vehicle registrations, bilingual signage etc.

The New Ireland won't be just a case of incorporating the 6 into the 26 like German reunification  nor will it be extending Crossmaglen across the 32 Counties.
Theres the need to get "others/non aligned" to vote for a New Ireland as its unlikely the Nationalist/Catholic vote will ever hit 51%.
Wonder will any of the pro UI Parties or politicians contact "new Lundy" chap to discuss the issue?

The state of the health service and the education system should be a big help with that over the course of the next few years. I am not sure if the general population realise how stuffed the NHS here is. It's not great in the rest of the UK but it's  different level here. Education will be impacted too and over the course of the next number of years that will most likely have an impact.

Basically as things stand things are only going to get worse here so if the DUP aren't prepared to move to try and do something about it leaving it at a stalemate there will only really be one other option.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on September 08, 2023, 11:41:31 AM
Quote from: marty34 on September 07, 2023, 10:44:52 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 04, 2023, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 04, 2023, 02:45:18 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
Pity more of them couldn't "come out" and say similar.
Anyway as I said many times before
A Confederation of Ireland with 2 Home Rule areas i.e the present day 6 and 26 Cos.
Dual Nationality/Citizenship for those in the 6 who'd want it.

I'm not  convinced of that.  It's still a version  of partition . Rules/laws in the south  might not  apply to the north and   vice versa . Look at how unionists  are behaving with that centenary  stone at Stormont.  The health /education/roads  in the north are  in the gutter , and they're stirring  the shite about a stone. You think this  sort of behaviour will stop in a UI? It will only  increase.  Placating unionists will be a never-ending  assignment   by the  Dublin government . They'll have to be seen to fund all sorts of things for  unionists , to show that they are  accommodating them in a UI. But no matter what they (Dublin)  do,  it will never be enough .
I hope you won't be campaigning for the UI side in any Referendum :(
The Confederate Government would be in charge of all the big ticket items while the Home Rule Parliaments would look after more localised stuff.
Belgium and Switzerland are well able to operate with different local laws in different areas.
If I want to get planning permission in Roscommon I may have different rules to someone in Tyrone but we'll both get by fine.
Same with vehicle registrations, bilingual signage etc.

The New Ireland won't be just a case of incorporating the 6 into the 26 like German reunification  nor will it be extending Crossmaglen across the 32 Counties.
Theres the need to get "others/non aligned" to vote for a New Ireland as its unlikely the Nationalist/Catholic vote will ever hit 51%.
Wonder will any of the pro UI Parties or politicians contact "new Lundy" chap to discuss the issue?
I wouldn't rule anything out. A certain % of Unionists will move to England or Scotland , driven by emotion. I wouldn't expect 100% of Loyalists to apply for Irish passports. I

Arlene said she'd move!

Arlene could afford to move, a lot of unionists/loyalists in working class areas can't.

Is there anything to be said for provincial parliaments/localised administrations to replace county councils in Ulster (9 counties) Munster, Connacht and Leinster?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on September 08, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Many of those Loyalists will have it a lot better in a United Ireland (if Republic's welfare system transfers over) than if they moved to GB, where they'd be like ducks out of water and getting less benefits. Someone has clearly done a good job in convincing them and Unionists at large that the UK is superior in that regard. The soundbytes by the Ben Lowrys of being part of the 5th biggest economy in the world need to be better challenged. In North, that translates to very little these days. The investments 26 has made in education from the 60s on while the Unionists were blocking education investment should be hammered home in the UI talks because that's the key to a better future - even if someone opts to emigrate after it. Better to emigrate with some qualifications, be your identity Irish or British.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 12:55:03 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Many of those Loyalists will have it a lot better in a United Ireland (if Republic's welfare system transfers over) than if they moved to GB, where they'd be like ducks out of water and getting less benefits. Someone has clearly done a good job in convincing them and Unionists at large that the UK is superior in that regard. The soundbytes by the Ben Lowrys of being part of the 5th biggest economy in the world need to be better challenged. In North, that translates to very little these days. The investments 26 has made in education from the 60s on while the Unionists were blocking education investment should be hammered home in the UI talks because that's the key to a better future - even if someone opts to emigrate after it. Better to emigrate with some qualifications, be your identity Irish or British.

Would you stay 'british' if the education and benefits were better? if the health service was better or job opportunities were better?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on September 08, 2023, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 12:55:03 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Many of those Loyalists will have it a lot better in a United Ireland (if Republic's welfare system transfers over) than if they moved to GB, where they'd be like ducks out of water and getting less benefits. Someone has clearly done a good job in convincing them and Unionists at large that the UK is superior in that regard. The soundbytes by the Ben Lowrys of being part of the 5th biggest economy in the world need to be better challenged. In North, that translates to very little these days. The investments 26 has made in education from the 60s on while the Unionists were blocking education investment should be hammered home in the UI talks because that's the key to a better future - even if someone opts to emigrate after it. Better to emigrate with some qualifications, be your identity Irish or British.

Would you stay 'british' if the education and benefits were better? if the health service was better or job opportunities were better?

Unionists would. But the point is that's an illusion. There is a University for every 400,000 citizens in the South, in North it is 1 per million - basing that on an Irish News analysis. Even Irish government recently announced millions (56 million) in funding for Magee. In the 60s, Republic were building regional technical colleges (now universities). The investments in education were a big part in Ireland's economic transformation while DUP have downed tools because a flower pot gets checked at Larne. It's the education vision they should be getting votes, not the big fuss over port checks.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 08, 2023, 01:16:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 12:55:03 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Many of those Loyalists will have it a lot better in a United Ireland (if Republic's welfare system transfers over) than if they moved to GB, where they'd be like ducks out of water and getting less benefits. Someone has clearly done a good job in convincing them and Unionists at large that the UK is superior in that regard. The soundbytes by the Ben Lowrys of being part of the 5th biggest economy in the world need to be better challenged. In North, that translates to very little these days. The investments 26 has made in education from the 60s on while the Unionists were blocking education investment should be hammered home in the UI talks because that's the key to a better future - even if someone opts to emigrate after it. Better to emigrate with some qualifications, be your identity Irish or British.

Would you stay 'british' if the education and benefits were better? if the health service was better or job opportunities were better?

Between 1921 and say 2000 the UK was better. Staunch republicans in Crossmaglen advocating for a UI were laughed at in the 50s after the NHS and Social security were introduced in the North while being absent in the South.    It's hard to get Unionists to change their mind on impressions of things like this.

People in the South didn't care about economic issues in 1921. They just wanted to be free.
It would surely be the same amongst the Gaels of the North.
The North is considerable poorer than the South and flags remain inedible.

(https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1669477841619103744)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 12:55:03 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Many of those Loyalists will have it a lot better in a United Ireland (if Republic's welfare system transfers over) than if they moved to GB, where they'd be like ducks out of water and getting less benefits. Someone has clearly done a good job in convincing them and Unionists at large that the UK is superior in that regard. The soundbytes by the Ben Lowrys of being part of the 5th biggest economy in the world need to be better challenged. In North, that translates to very little these days. The investments 26 has made in education from the 60s on while the Unionists were blocking education investment should be hammered home in the UI talks because that's the key to a better future - even if someone opts to emigrate after it. Better to emigrate with some qualifications, be your identity Irish or British.

Would you stay 'british' if the education and benefits were better? if the health service was better or job opportunities were better?

Unionists would. But the point is that's an illusion. There is a University for every 400,000 citizens in the South, in North it is 1 per million - basing that on an Irish News analysis. Even Irish government recently announced millions (56 million) in funding for Magee. In the 60s, Republic were building regional technical colleges (now universities). The investments in education were a big part in Ireland's economic transformation while DUP have downed tools because a flower pot gets checked at Larne. It's the education vision they should be getting votes, not the big fuss over port checks.

Loyalists and unionist would live in shit before joining the country.. Educated prods may have a different view on things but if someone is a Loyalist and a unionist (its in the name) they won't give a crap that the DUP and the other groups are pulling the place down
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on September 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.

And everyone pays €50 to see a GP in the South all the while you'd do well to see a GP in the North for at least two weeks!

Yeah, the NHS is free at the point of use, but if you can't access the services due to lack of resources, what's the point?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 08, 2023, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 12:55:03 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Many of those Loyalists will have it a lot better in a United Ireland (if Republic's welfare system transfers over) than if they moved to GB, where they'd be like ducks out of water and getting less benefits. Someone has clearly done a good job in convincing them and Unionists at large that the UK is superior in that regard. The soundbytes by the Ben Lowrys of being part of the 5th biggest economy in the world need to be better challenged. In North, that translates to very little these days. The investments 26 has made in education from the 60s on while the Unionists were blocking education investment should be hammered home in the UI talks because that's the key to a better future - even if someone opts to emigrate after it. Better to emigrate with some qualifications, be your identity Irish or British.

Would you stay 'british' if the education and benefits were better? if the health service was better or job opportunities were better?

Unionists would. But the point is that's an illusion. There is a University for every 400,000 citizens in the South, in North it is 1 per million - basing that on an Irish News analysis. Even Irish government recently announced millions (56 million) in funding for Magee. In the 60s, Republic were building regional technical colleges (now universities). The investments in education were a big part in Ireland's economic transformation while DUP have downed tools because a flower pot gets checked at Larne. It's the education vision they should be getting votes, not the big fuss over port checks.

Loyalists and unionist would live in shit before joining the country.. Educated prods may have a different view on things but if someone is a Loyalist and a unionist (its in the name) they won't give a crap that the DUP and the other groups are pulling the place down
The loyalists need a leader who can lead  them into a better future. Willi Brandt led Germany to accept that the land in the East that used to be German was gone. He went to Poland in 1970 to apologise to Poland for the Nazis. That is leadership. The DUP is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7iVNoWDJDY
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on September 08, 2023, 03:56:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 12:55:03 PM
Quote from: weareros on September 08, 2023, 12:49:50 PM
Many of those Loyalists will have it a lot better in a United Ireland (if Republic's welfare system transfers over) than if they moved to GB, where they'd be like ducks out of water and getting less benefits. Someone has clearly done a good job in convincing them and Unionists at large that the UK is superior in that regard. The soundbytes by the Ben Lowrys of being part of the 5th biggest economy in the world need to be better challenged. In North, that translates to very little these days. The investments 26 has made in education from the 60s on while the Unionists were blocking education investment should be hammered home in the UI talks because that's the key to a better future - even if someone opts to emigrate after it. Better to emigrate with some qualifications, be your identity Irish or British.

Would you stay 'british' if the education and benefits were better? if the health service was better or job opportunities were better?

Unionists would. But the point is that's an illusion. There is a University for every 400,000 citizens in the South, in North it is 1 per million - basing that on an Irish News analysis. Even Irish government recently announced millions (56 million) in funding for Magee. In the 60s, Republic were building regional technical colleges (now universities). The investments in education were a big part in Ireland's economic transformation while DUP have downed tools because a flower pot gets checked at Larne. It's the education vision they should be getting votes, not the big fuss over port checks.

Loyalists and unionist would live in shit before joining the country.. Educated prods may have a different view on things but if someone is a Loyalist and a unionist (its in the name) they won't give a crap that the DUP and the other groups are pulling the place down

When I say would, I meant Unionists would stay British for better or worse and won't support a UI. I agree. But many seem under the illusion that they are in an economically better position in the UK. They even roll out their Unionist economists (Gudgin, Birnie) to paint a narrative of economically better off in UK, and then you have Lowry with his better off in the 5th largest economy in the world, while still having full access to Dublin airport. That was his actual sell on the radio the other day.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 04:56:39 PM
When the New Ireland comes those who want to  in the  6 County Area can still have Brit Nationality and Citizenship.
Assuming there is still a Great Britain Political entity by then.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 05:06:12 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 04:56:39 PM
When the New Ireland comes those who want to  in the  6 County Area can still have Brit Nationality and Citizenship.
Assuming there is still a Great Britain Political entity by then.

I'm sure all the brits that live in the south have dual nationality? its not a problem I'd say, but they choose to live there.. No loyalist will choose to become part of the Republic.

It'll just have to be a head count vote and then they can decide to stay or go, I'd say less than .01% would even think about moving though
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 05:44:11 PM
You could frame the Referendum Question to ensure NO meant favouring an All Ireland outcome? ;D
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on September 08, 2023, 07:26:57 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.

And everyone pays €50 to see a GP in the South all the while you'd do well to see a GP in the North for at least two weeks!

Yeah, the NHS is free at the point of use, but if you can't access the services due to lack of resources, what's the point?

Valid point JC.

NHS is held up as a beacon of light but it's crumbling badly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 08, 2023, 07:58:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 08, 2023, 05:06:12 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 04:56:39 PM
When the New Ireland comes those who want to  in the  6 County Area can still have Brit Nationality and Citizenship.
Assuming there is still a Great Britain Political entity by then.

I'm sure all the brits that live in the south have dual nationality? its not a problem I'd say, but they choose to live there.. No loyalist will choose to become part of the Republic.

It'll just have to be a head count vote and then they can decide to stay or go, I'd say less than .01% would even think about moving though
If something very bad happens economically that threatens the living standard of Loyalists but not people in the Republic- ie something linked to the UK, say the removal of the subvention you  would be in a new situation. The Union is bad for everyone but Loyalists don't get that ..yet.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Wildweasel74 on September 08, 2023, 08:27:39 PM
Car insurance cost down south are a disgrace.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 09:03:24 PM
The No side is fighting back here....
By the way not everyone has to pay Doctors for a consultation, possibly 50% now.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on September 08, 2023, 09:23:09 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 09:03:24 PM
The No side is fighting back here....
By the way not everyone has to pay Doctors for a consultation, possibly 50% now.

How many of the 50% who pay claim it back off their medical insurance?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 08, 2023, 09:28:02 PM
Most people just pay their GP, they do not pay for cover for GPS rather getting cover for Consultants, hospitals and the like.
Likewise in the North, many have private dentists and just ody them.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on September 08, 2023, 09:41:02 PM
Leo saying it will happen in his life time. Column wanting a poll in 2030. This is not going away no matter how much unionism seems to want to bury its head in the sand
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Orior on September 08, 2023, 10:54:06 PM
Great to hear Leo speak up.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 09, 2023, 12:13:17 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 08, 2023, 09:23:09 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 09:03:24 PM
The No side is fighting back here....
By the way not everyone has to pay Doctors for a consultation, possibly 50% now.

How many of the 50% who pay claim it back off their medical insurance?
No idea, some Health Insurance plans give you some percentage refunds.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: 93-DY-SAM on September 09, 2023, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.

And everyone pays €50 to see a GP in the South all the while you'd do well to see a GP in the North for at least two weeks!

Yeah, the NHS is free at the point of use, but if you can't access the services due to lack of resources, what's the point?

Another great lie by Unionists and Loyalists - the great free NHS. Free at the point of contact. They conveniently forget you are taxed for it whether you use it or not. This combined with their deliberate lack of understanding of how healthcare works in the South is one of their aces but if you scratch the surface of it at all - it is one big lie.

The NHS is falling fast under the Tories and many people in the North would gladly pay to see a GP if they thought it guaranteed them an appointment when they wanted/needed it.
   
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on September 09, 2023, 08:00:38 AM
Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on September 09, 2023, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.

And everyone pays €50 to see a GP in the South all the while you'd do well to see a GP in the North for at least two weeks!

Yeah, the NHS is free at the point of use, but if you can't access the services due to lack of resources, what's the point?

Another great lie by Unionists and Loyalists - the great free NHS. Free at the point of contact. They conveniently forget you are taxed for it whether you use it or not. This combined with their deliberate lack of understanding of how healthcare works in the South is one of their aces but if you scratch the surface of it at all - it is one big lie.

The NHS is falling fast under the Tories and many people in the North would gladly pay to see a GP if they thought it guaranteed them an appointment when they wanted/needed it.


You'd do well to see a gp never mind do well to see them in two weeks! Message on our gp's phone is only contact in case of emergency. Should that not be a&e you go to then and if so what's the point of the gp!!

Also gps are becoming scarce which is really not helping. The nhs argument for preserving the "union" is long dead. Life expectancy is dropping in the uk and from what I can see will continue to do so.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: marty34 on September 09, 2023, 08:15:50 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 09, 2023, 08:00:38 AM
Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on September 09, 2023, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.

And everyone pays €50 to see a GP in the South all the while you'd do well to see a GP in the North for at least two weeks!

Yeah, the NHS is free at the point of use, but if you can't access the services due to lack of resources, what's the point?

Another great lie by Unionists and Loyalists - the great free NHS. Free at the point of contact. They conveniently forget you are taxed for it whether you use it or not. This combined with their deliberate lack of understanding of how healthcare works in the South is one of their aces but if you scratch the surface of it at all - it is one big lie.

The NHS is falling fast under the Tories and many people in the North would gladly pay to see a GP if they thought it guaranteed them an appointment when they wanted/needed it.


You'd do well to see a gp never mind do well to see them in two weeks! Message on our gp's phone is only contact in case of emergency. Should that not be a&e you go to then and if so what's the point of the gp!!

Also gps are becoming scarce which is really not helping. The nhs argument for preserving the "union" is long dead. Life expectancy is dropping in the uk and from what I can see will continue to do so.

I think that's why AE is so busy.

People can't see their GP and just head straight to AE.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 09, 2023, 08:52:08 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 08, 2023, 10:54:06 PM
Great to hear Leo speak up.
It must have been  something to hear what he said in the North. From a Fine Gaeler.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 09, 2023, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on September 08, 2023, 09:41:02 PM
Leo saying it will happen in his life time. Column wanting a poll in 2030. This is not going away no matter how much unionism seems to want to bury its head in the sand

It must have meant a lot to Gaels in the North to hear a Fine Gael Taoiseach say what he said.

In 1970 Willi Brandt accepted the loss of German land in Prussia after WW2. The Soviets wanted him to recognise East Germany . He refused , saying he would never sign away the right to German self determination.Irish self determination has faced many challenges in the last 5 centuries but we seem to be moving towards something better.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 11, 2023, 10:17:10 AM
Helping the neighbours again

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41223676.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tbrick18 on September 11, 2023, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.

Is that a unionist mindset?
Because I personally feel that there would be more unionist/loyalists living on benefits. Catholics in the 6 I believe have a much better level of education than their protestant counterparts. I've no evidence, just my perception.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: tbrick18 on September 11, 2023, 11:42:06 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 11, 2023, 10:17:10 AM
Helping the neighbours again

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41223676.html

Not strictly true.
This is part of the GFA and SEUPB is a north south arms length body which administers the EU fund.
Both UK and Ireland pay into that fund (as do the other EU countries), but UK don't really publicise the fact they are paying into it post brexit.
Similar programmes exist across europe.

Seems like you are inferring this is Ireland giving NI handouts, not the case. The programme is open to the border counties, north and south.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on September 11, 2023, 11:58:22 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on September 11, 2023, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.

Is that a unionist mindset?
Because I personally feel that there would be more unionist/loyalists living on benefits. Catholics in the 6 I believe have a much better level of education than their protestant counterparts. I've no evidence, just my perception.

It used to be, no doubt, not entirely sure that's still the case.

As for better educated catholics than protestants I think there's still a class divide in there to consider, catholic boys from poorer socio-economic backgrounds aren't doing much better than protestant boys from similar backgrounds using free school meals as a barometer of this.
There still are more nationalist areas marked as having issues with social deprivation than unionist areas to consider as well.

The usual headlines you see are based on A level results and nationalist Grammar schools are indeed churning out more students with Grade C's and above than their unionist counterparts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 11, 2023, 12:21:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 11, 2023, 11:58:22 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on September 11, 2023, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2023, 01:36:42 PM
Also remaining is the Unionist mindset  that most Catholics live on benefits which are much lower in the 26.

Is that a unionist mindset?
Because I personally feel that there would be more unionist/loyalists living on benefits. Catholics in the 6 I believe have a much better level of education than their protestant counterparts. I've no evidence, just my perception.
Free school meals is probably not the right metric. Income isn't either. Income levels in Wexford are higher than in Mayo but Mayo has better educational outcomes. Education is a future. Not all families get this. 

It used to be, no doubt, not entirely sure that's still the case.

As for better educated catholics than protestants I think there's still a class divide in there to consider, catholic boys from poorer socio-economic backgrounds aren't doing much better than protestant boys from similar backgrounds using free school meals as a barometer of this.
There still are more nationalist areas marked as having issues with social deprivation than unionist areas to consider as well.

The usual headlines you see are based on A level results and nationalist Grammar schools are indeed churning out more students with Grade C's and above than their unionist counterparts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on September 12, 2023, 08:46:10 AM
Christ the hypocrisy of Union touting Heaton Harris, calling out Varadkar for saying he envisaged a UI in his life time. It is a perfectly reasonable position for a Taoiseach to take. He's not exactly campaigning for one (although perhaps he should). Of course the BBC and ITV promote it as controversial.It is no more so than any Unionist be they a conservative of of the Ulster variety espousing the union.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on September 12, 2023, 10:34:29 AM
Total stage managed outrage, presumably to try and sweeten DUPUDA.
The "not helpful" cliche thrown out as well.
Croppies lie down and shut up so we can pretend ye don't exist.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on September 12, 2023, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 12, 2023, 10:34:29 AM
Total stage managed outrage, presumably to try and sweeten DUPUDA.
The "not helpful" cliche thrown out as well.
Croppies lie down and shut up so we can pretend ye don't exist.
I agree, but the reporting by the two media outlets was partisan.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 29, 2023, 05:43:14 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dups-gregory-campbell-accuses-u2-frontman-bono-of-being-in-fantasy-world-after-united-ireland-comments/a2083253900.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on September 29, 2023, 06:11:37 PM
Unfortunately Bono could have turned people off the United Ireland cause purely for the cringe way he described it in the "dating stage" with the "falling in love" next. He's the new Michaleen matchmaker from The Quiet Man.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: red hander on September 29, 2023, 07:18:37 PM
As the unforgettable Mark E Smith once said of Bongo: "My window cleaner has more to say than that cnut."
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on September 29, 2023, 07:39:07 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 29, 2023, 05:43:14 PMhttps://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dups-gregory-campbell-accuses-u2-frontman-bono-of-being-in-fantasy-world-after-united-ireland-comments/a2083253900.html

When Gregory says "We",  is he speaking  for everyone  in the north? 

Has he forgotten  half  the north are catholic/nationalist?  But sure , they don't count. Never did, in the eyes of  bigoted unionists

PS. Bono is a  bell-end , who should  just stick to music. Actually he should bstop that too  judging by the last few albums
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 29, 2023, 08:14:01 PM
The mentions of a United Ireland are coming thick and fast from the South these days. Gregory and co are playing United Ireland tennis. The vultures are circling the corpse. What will we do with Stormont the day after ?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: clarshack on September 29, 2023, 09:46:09 PM
When the likes of Varadkar and Bono are talking about a United Ireland it must be only a matter of time. It wasn't that long ago that Varadkar wouldn't even entertain the idea so why now the change?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on September 29, 2023, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: clarshack on September 29, 2023, 09:46:09 PMWhen the likes of Varadkar and Bono are talking about a United Ireland it must be only a matter of time. It wasn't that long ago that Varadkar wouldn't even entertain the idea so why now the change?

Whether you are in favour of United Ireland or not it would be ridiculous to deny that it is likely to happen by 2050.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on September 29, 2023, 10:54:00 PM
Quote from: clarshack on September 29, 2023, 09:46:09 PMWhen the likes of Varadkar and Bono are talking about a United Ireland it must be only a matter of time. It wasn't that long ago that Varadkar wouldn't even entertain the idea so why now the change?

Exactly.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on September 29, 2023, 11:27:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 29, 2023, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: clarshack on September 29, 2023, 09:46:09 PMWhen the likes of Varadkar and Bono are talking about a United Ireland it must be only a matter of time. It wasn't that long ago that Varadkar wouldn't even entertain the idea so why now the change?

Whether you are in favour of United Ireland or not it would be ridiculous to deny that it is likely to happen by 2050.

Too many double negatives in that statement. Is 2050 still ridiculously early? I would have thought the fact that even the SDLP are now looking at 2030 for a poll should tell you how things are changing.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on September 30, 2023, 12:26:03 AM
That's what he said!

I think that might be optimistic, myself.  But it is only a matter of time.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 30, 2023, 01:11:11 AM
Change the mindset, I've lived in Ireland all my life. The borders have always been someone else's.

How much different will your life be? When it happens, brilliant, but if you are in your 40's/50's now, that Ireland you are searching for will be entirely different.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on September 30, 2023, 03:47:27 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on September 29, 2023, 11:27:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 29, 2023, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: clarshack on September 29, 2023, 09:46:09 PMWhen the likes of Varadkar and Bono are talking about a United Ireland it must be only a matter of time. It wasn't that long ago that Varadkar wouldn't even entertain the idea so why now the change?

Whether you are in favour of United Ireland or not it would be ridiculous to deny that it is likely to happen by 2050.

Too many double negatives in that statement. Is 2050 still ridiculously early? I would have thought the fact that even the SDLP are now looking at 2030 for a poll should tell you how things are changing.
Brexit was the worst decision the DUP could have made.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on September 30, 2023, 02:44:16 PM
Brexit has put a United Ireland on agenda for so many reasons. In addition to the dysfunction caused, it means a vote for a UI is also a vote to get back into EU and that will sway voters, especially the more Brexit Britain falters. It's also forced Dublin's hand. There's an always the risk of Brexit Britain going the way of US and Australia and allowing for example hormone growth promoters in cattle. Indeed US and Canada are pushing UK to permit this. Now I know there's the odd Irish farmer who was caught using angel dust, but it's illegal in EU and with Brexit there's always the risk of that getting into supply chain via North. The port checks are protecting Irish farming right now but there's a risk that will keep  Dublin anxious, and the EU as we know expect the single market to be protected. Would really hurt economy if there were questions about quality of beef exports and the gentleman farmers reading their FJ by a nice turf fire would start to get very concerned. Now I know it should be about the people first and doing right about our people left behind, but that's the type of thing that really lights a fire under a Blueshirts arse.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on September 30, 2023, 11:22:35 PM
Quote from: clarshack on September 29, 2023, 09:46:09 PMWhen the likes of Varadkar and Bono are talking about a United Ireland it must be only a matter of time. It wasn't that long ago that Varadkar wouldn't even entertain the idea so why now the change?
But now Sinn Féin are in the saddle riding the high horse. FG's negative campaigning only seems to strengthen Sinn Féin, why not put a bit of green out there?

I wouldn't be surprised to to see that banner at FF's ard fheis 'Fianna Fáil the republican party' where the republican party bit is more emboldened and with a higher font size.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LC on October 01, 2023, 12:45:32 PM
Re the shinners all well and good standing at the side line slabbering all the time in terms of what they would do if they were on the pitch.

However it is now inevitable that SF will be in charge in the not too distant future but to keep the football analogies going they are strong down the middle in terms of Mary Lou, Pearse D and your woman that ripped your man out of RTE a new one the time of the PAC post Ryan T saga but they are carrying far too many passengers.  Their bench is too weak and regarding their cohorts in the north they would be the equivalent of your junior B players.....at best.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: NAG1 on October 02, 2023, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: LC on October 01, 2023, 12:45:32 PMRe the shinners all well and good standing at the side line slabbering all the time in terms of what they would do if they were on the pitch.

However it is now inevitable that SF will be in charge in the not too distant future but to keep the football analogies going they are strong down the middle in terms of Mary Lou, Pearse D and your woman that ripped your man out of RTE a new one the time of the PAC post Ryan T saga but they are carrying far too many passengers.  Their bench is too weak and regarding their cohorts in the north they would be the equivalent of your junior B players.....at best.

Any weaker than those that have gone before them?  ;)

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on October 02, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 30, 2023, 01:11:11 AMChange the mindset, I've lived in Ireland all my life. The borders have always been someone else's.

How much different will your life be? When it happens, brilliant, but if you are in your 40's/50's now, that Ireland you are searching for will be entirely different.

The border is now very real in terms of investment, job opportunities for kids, health and education.

We're at the mercy of the most right wing, gaslighting Tory government since Thatcher who openly don't give a flying fúck about this place and are happy that we've got the DUP to fúck us over evermore.
The damage they've done will take a generation to correct.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on October 02, 2023, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 02, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 30, 2023, 01:11:11 AMChange the mindset, I've lived in Ireland all my life. The borders have always been someone else's.

How much different will your life be? When it happens, brilliant, but if you are in your 40's/50's now, that Ireland you are searching for will be entirely different.

The border is now very real in terms of investment, job opportunities for kids, health and education.

We're at the mercy of the most right wing, gaslighting Tory government since Thatcher who openly don't give a flying fúck about this place and are happy that we've got the DUP to fúck us over evermore.
The damage they've done will take a generation to correct.


And the government in Dublin are doing a great job?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on October 02, 2023, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 02, 2023, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 02, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 30, 2023, 01:11:11 AMChange the mindset, I've lived in Ireland all my life. The borders have always been someone else's.

How much different will your life be? When it happens, brilliant, but if you are in your 40's/50's now, that Ireland you are searching for will be entirely different.

The border is now very real in terms of investment, job opportunities for kids, health and education.

We're at the mercy of the most right wing, gaslighting Tory government since Thatcher who openly don't give a flying fúck about this place and are happy that we've got the DUP to fúck us over evermore.
The damage they've done will take a generation to correct.


And the government in Dublin are doing a great job?

The Dublin government is middling, there is room for improvement but they will not be noted in history in the way that the present London government will be.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on October 02, 2023, 06:36:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on October 02, 2023, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 02, 2023, 01:33:55 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 02, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 30, 2023, 01:11:11 AMChange the mindset, I've lived in Ireland all my life. The borders have always been someone else's.

How much different will your life be? When it happens, brilliant, but if you are in your 40's/50's now, that Ireland you are searching for will be entirely different.

The border is now very real in terms of investment, job opportunities for kids, health and education.

We're at the mercy of the most right wing, gaslighting Tory government since Thatcher who openly don't give a flying fúck about this place and are happy that we've got the DUP to fúck us over evermore.
The damage they've done will take a generation to correct.


And the government in Dublin are doing a great job?

The Dublin government is middling, there is room for improvement but they will not be noted in history in the way that the present London government will be.

Yep, all Tory governments have been self serving Cnuts..

My point is, I'm Irish the physical border won't change that.

Was there ever an effort by the Irish governments to unite Ireland really?

Also was there ever a view at the time of partition, that all nationalist/republicans would collectively leave the north after it became clear that they were being shafted by both sides?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PM
First thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
Dev was entirely right, Churchill was a cúnt in a long line of cúnts.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on October 03, 2023, 08:18:42 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
Dev was entirely right, Churchill was a cúnt in a long line of cúnts.

Was he? Look at the number of dominions that gained independence after being Co-opted to fight in WW2.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on October 03, 2023, 08:18:42 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
Dev was entirely right, Churchill was a cúnt in a long line of cúnts.

Was he? Look at the number of dominions that gained independence after being Co-opted to fight in WW2.

How many of them were less than 50 miles off the GB coastline in a time of a still uncertain Europe?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Armagh18 on October 03, 2023, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on October 03, 2023, 08:18:42 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
Dev was entirely right, Churchill was a cúnt in a long line of cúnts.

Was he? Look at the number of dominions that gained independence after being Co-opted to fight in WW2.

How many of them were less than 50 miles off the GB coastline in a time of a still uncertain Europe?
Not to mention there were plenty from the north who fought with the Brits in WW2 who mightnt have been too happy at that
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: LeoMc on October 03, 2023, 11:01:53 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on October 03, 2023, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on October 03, 2023, 08:18:42 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
Dev was entirely right, Churchill was a cúnt in a long line of cúnts.

Was he? Look at the number of dominions that gained independence after being Co-opted to fight in WW2.

How many of them were less than 50 miles off the GB coastline in a time of a still uncertain Europe?
Not to mention there were plenty from the north who fought with the Brits in WW2 who mightnt have been too happy at that
In 1945 Churchill was gone, Britain was bankrupt, Labour were pro-decolonisation and the US was looking right wing Nations to stand against Communism.
However, during WW2 reunification was not in Churchills power to grant. They could not force the North against the will of its majority.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on October 03, 2023, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on October 03, 2023, 08:18:42 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
Dev was entirely right, Churchill was a cúnt in a long line of cúnts.

Was he? Look at the number of dominions that gained independence after being Co-opted to fight in WW2.

How many of them were less than 50 miles off the GB coastline in a time of a still uncertain Europe?
Not to mention there were plenty from the north who fought with the Brits in WW2 who mightnt have been too happy at that

Not as many as the hardline loyalists would have you believe. Plenty of fighting age men holed up in the shipyard rather than go off to war, lest we forget.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on October 03, 2023, 12:33:14 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on October 03, 2023, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on October 03, 2023, 08:18:42 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 03, 2023, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
Dev was entirely right, Churchill was a cúnt in a long line of cúnts.

Was he? Look at the number of dominions that gained independence after being Co-opted to fight in WW2.

How many of them were less than 50 miles off the GB coastline in a time of a still uncertain Europe?
Not to mention there were plenty from the north who fought with the Brits in WW2 who mightnt have been too happy at that

Not as many as the hardline loyalists would have you believe. Plenty of fighting age men holed up in the shipyard rather than go off to war, lest we forget.

Which during the war the yard was used to 'help' the war effort through industry

Harland and Wolff made tanks and guns in the early years of the Second World War. For the Royal Navy, they constructed aircraft carriers.

But yes, if you were looking to avoid being in a war become a welder  ;)
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 03, 2023, 09:03:46 PM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
1939 was 19 years after the Tans. There is no way Dev could have accepted and the country wasn't ready to re-  integrate the North , regardless of public feeling about it. The economy was a basket case until the early 60s.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on October 04, 2023, 01:49:50 AM
Trusting the genocidal Churchill was a non starter.

Taking Tories at their word, likewise.  See promises made about support for the British efforts in WW1.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: seafoid on October 05, 2023, 08:06:00 AM
Quote from: weareros on October 02, 2023, 07:28:12 PMFirst thing that happened after NI opted out of Free State (technically all island was independent for a second), was the boundary commission. Cormac Moore had a good article in Irish News a while back on how the Free State Government, in particular two ministers from North, made a hames of that.

https://www.irishnews.com/arts/2023/07/25/news/cormac_moore_was_eoin_macneill_to_blame_for_boundary_commission_s_disastrous_outcome_-3464293/

Supposedly Churchhill offered a UI in return from Dev's help in World War II. Dev didn't trust him and maintained neutrality. It might have been the best chance lost.
1921 negotiations
"The Irish delegates led by Arthur Griffith were poorly prepared and, unlike the British side, lacked an opening position paper. As the doyen of Anglo-Irish historical analysis, Nicholas Mansergh was later to note, "the basic paper at any conference is apt to determine the parameters of subsequent discussion . . . This was to prove no exception."

The Boundary Commission was always vague and the Irish side were unprepared. The Brits ran rings around them and it resulted in a lot of Irish people being stranded for over a century.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: AustinPowers on October 05, 2023, 06:15:54 PM
Those goalposts  moving further away

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67020960

The Brits will always  play the "not enough support for a UI" card . 

So ,  the only way to  see if there's enough support for a UI , is to have a border poll?  But will that  poll  ever happen?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on October 05, 2023, 08:46:39 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on October 05, 2023, 06:15:54 PMThose goalposts  moving further away

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67020960

The Brits will always  play the "not enough support for a UI" card . 

So ,  the only way to  see if there's enough support for a UI , is to have a border poll?  But will that  poll  ever happen?

He can rule it out all he likes, if the numbers are there then it will go through the courts. There seems to a general aim for 2030. A couple of good election results needed for nationalism between now and then to justify a poll. More pressure needs exerted on alliance and greens to stop spoofing on the subject. I see the UK government being a neutral observer on the matter as promised is horse shit
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on October 05, 2023, 09:22:05 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on October 05, 2023, 06:15:54 PMThose goalposts  moving further away

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67020960

The Brits will always  play the "not enough support for a UI" card . 

So ,  the only way to  see if there's enough support for a UI , is to have a border poll?  But will that  poll  ever happen?

He also thinks he is going to renegotiate the Withdrawal agreement. So let's take anything he says with a pinch of salt.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: imtommygunn on October 05, 2023, 09:35:04 PM
He's basically a a Tory and we all know how much they can be trusted.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on October 06, 2023, 01:21:02 AM
What a ****.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on October 06, 2023, 10:35:39 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 05, 2023, 09:22:05 PM
Quote from: AustinPowers on October 05, 2023, 06:15:54 PMThose goalposts  moving further away

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67020960

The Brits will always  play the "not enough support for a UI" card . 

So ,  the only way to  see if there's enough support for a UI , is to have a border poll?  But will that  poll  ever happen?

He also thinks he is going to renegotiate the Withdrawal agreement. So let's take anything he says with a pinch of salt.

+1.

Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 19, 2024, 10:23:30 AM
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/more-people-in-ni-would-vote-to-stay-part-of-uk-if-border-poll-was-called/a1750577562.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on February 19, 2024, 11:29:43 AM
Disappointed with those figures to be honest. Lucid talk is pretty accurate unlike the NILT survey or the Pete Shirlow bog roll survey from Liverpool university. A few yrs ago lucid talk and lord Ashcroft had UI polling well into the 40's and actually even ahead of UK in some polls. The breakdown shows UI more popular in the under 45's but it's the over 55's were all the damage is done with only 28% pro UI. I would say sure just a bit more of a wait but the worrying thing is I'm not far off that 55 age bracket myself ;D. With the don't knows out it's 56 44 so still pretty tight and hard to call on the day. Interesting to see the green voters are overwhelmingly nationalist whereas alliance is a bit more of a mixed bag
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: From the Bunker on February 19, 2024, 11:35:54 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 19, 2024, 11:29:43 AMDisappointed with those figures to be honest. Lucid talk is pretty accurate unlike the NILT survey or the Pete Shirlow bog roll survey from Liverpool university. A few yrs ago lucid talk and lord Ashcroft had UI polling well into the 40's and actually even ahead of UK in some polls. The breakdown shows UI more popular in the under 45's but it's the over 55's were all the damage is done with only 28% pro UI. I would say sure just a bit more of a wait but the worrying thing is I'm not far off that 55 age bracket myself ;D. With the don't knows out it's 56 44 so still pretty tight and hard to call on the day. Interesting to see the green voters are overwhelmingly nationalist whereas alliance is a bit more of a mixed bag

The important bit is ''A united Ireland is the most popular choice for the under-45s with support for the Union strongest amongst the middle-aged and pensioners''.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 19, 2024, 12:11:29 PM
Its the not knowing for that age bracket which doesn't surprise me, they probably feel that it will impact on them  later in life, pensions and the like.

Its about the details, if you do a poll, knowing that the concerns you have won't affect your heath and retirement then the figures will change, hopefully.

Not confident that I'll see a UI. Very slow moving
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: JohnDenver on February 19, 2024, 12:14:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 19, 2024, 12:11:29 PMIts the not knowing for that age bracket which doesn't surprise me, they probably feel that it will impact on them  later in life, pensions and the like.

Its about the details, if you do a poll, knowing that the concerns you have won't affect your heath and retirement then the figures will change, hopefully.

Not confident that I'll see a UI. Very slow moving

Where does your OH sit on the issue? Personal question obviously so no need to answer if it's a touchy subject, just that you've mentioned before about difference background.

Agree regarding that age group who are looking for certainties with retirement / health care getting closer. I think it's probably more of an issue with the middle ground all the same.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on February 19, 2024, 12:54:59 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 19, 2024, 11:29:43 AMDisappointed with those figures to be honest. Lucid talk is pretty accurate unlike the NILT survey or the Pete Shirlow bog roll survey from Liverpool university. A few yrs ago lucid talk and lord Ashcroft had UI polling well into the 40's and actually even ahead of UK in some polls. The breakdown shows UI more popular in the under 45's but it's the over 55's were all the damage is done with only 28% pro UI. I would say sure just a bit more of a wait but the worrying thing is I'm not far off that 55 age bracket myself ;D. With the don't knows out it's 56 44 so still pretty tight and hard to call on the day. Interesting to see the green voters are overwhelmingly nationalist whereas alliance is a bit more of a mixed bag

I'm enthused by them. Here's why:

1. 39% would vote for unity tomorrow, without a plan. Economically speaking, unity is a no-brainer, and the more people cop on to that, then as a plan/proposal comes tgether, that figure can only go one way.

2. The poll also showed a healthy majority (52% to 44%) support a united Ireland in the future.

3. A majority of people under 45 (46% to 42%) support reunification. This chimes with recent voting intention polling, also by LucidTalk, which found that the only age category where the DUP outpolled SF was in the over 55 bracket. As Sam McBride put it at the time, "more of the voters who die are unionist, and more of the voters who join the electoral register are nationalist".

4. Undecided voters will be kingmakers and if we look at the preferences of people who vote for parties which are undecided/on the fence about unity, the poll shows that a fairly whopping 71% of Alliance voters and 72% of Green voters want to see a United Ireland in the future.

5. I'm rehashing what I posted a few months ago but take a look at the trends. 50 years ago, nationalism held 18% of council council seats, now it's 40% (and could have been north of that figure, had SF run more candidates). By contrast, it's only 9 years since unionism held 51% of council seats, and today that figure has dropped to 40%. An 11% drop in the Unionist vote in just nine years. Given that demographic trends clearly indicate a strong likelihood that the electoral lead nationalism now has over unionism is likely to not only continue, but to widen at an accelerated pace, then what will those %'s be in a further 9 years? Then try thinking about how they'll look in 10 years, 20 years...30 years?


6. LucidTalk, I think most would agree, has had the best track record of polling accuracy, so their figures are generally worth paying attention to. Someone posted to twitter a breakdown of LucidTalk polls on unity since 2016 (a 'poll of polls'). It shows that since 2016, support for remaining in the UK has dropped from 62% to 49% (-13%) while support for Irish unity has risen from 25% to 39% (+14%). That's a remarkable swing in just 8 years. What might it be like in another 8, or 10 or 20 years, given the ageing/declining protetant/unionist population and the radidy growing and younger Catholic/nationalist population?
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: RedHand88 on February 19, 2024, 01:12:23 PM
The poll is very encouraging when you look past the clickbait headline that no doubt will be plastered over every rag today - "Majority would vote to stay in the UK" or whatever.

As snapchap pointed out, the demographic breakdown is very, VERY encouraging, as is the breakdown of Alliance/Green centrist voters.
The poll shows that support for the union continues to fall, whilst support for unity increases.
I honestly don't think there will ever be a Unionist FM again. By the time Jim Allister retires/moves on and TUV votes begin to migrate back to the DUP it will be too late.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 19, 2024, 01:16:14 PM
Quote from: JohnDenver on February 19, 2024, 12:14:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 19, 2024, 12:11:29 PMIts the not knowing for that age bracket which doesn't surprise me, they probably feel that it will impact on them  later in life, pensions and the like.

Its about the details, if you do a poll, knowing that the concerns you have won't affect your heath and retirement then the figures will change, hopefully.

Not confident that I'll see a UI. Very slow moving

Where does your OH sit on the issue? Personal question obviously so no need to answer if it's a touchy subject, just that you've mentioned before about difference background.

Agree regarding that age group who are looking for certainties with retirement / health care getting closer. I think it's probably more of an issue with the middle ground all the same.

She's never been a unionist nor her immediate family had any strong views on the union.

We certainly clashed over things at the start but she's not stupid, if there is a better way then she'll opt for that, if the staus quo remains, and has no effect on it then she wouldn't be bothered either way. I do believe given the options with some detail or meat on the bones, and providing it does not effect her pension, or 'perceived' health benefits she'd vote. My kids would vote straight away.

From a nationalist view I've always wanted a UI. If it never happens in my lifetime it wont change who I am or what I believe in. I see myself as an Irish man and the border is just something that's been there.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Applesisapples on February 19, 2024, 01:46:58 PM
As an older person, SF voter and nationalist I would not rush to vote yes without seeing how my quality of life  and standard of living would be impacted. I would be in the yes camp if....
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on February 19, 2024, 02:02:24 PM
Some telling stats on that poll.

Staying in the Uk now and in the future is at 44% and that number will likely only go down. Direction of travel is clear unless the younger change as they get older...

However 55-64 is 64% to 28% in favour of Union. Is the disparity that great in that age group or would it indicate as they near retirement, good few nationalists opt for the status quo in the absence of a plan from Dublin/clarity over pensions they've paid into.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Snapchap on February 19, 2024, 02:13:57 PM
Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2024, 02:02:24 PMHowever 55-64 is 64% to 28% in favour of Union. Is the disparity that great in that age group or would it indicate as they near retirement, good few nationalists opt for the status quo in the absence of a plan from Dublin/clarity over pensions they've paid into.

I don't think there's too much analysis required on that one. Support for the union is strongest in that age category because that's the age categry with the biggest majority of unionists. The protestant/unionist population is ageing one.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: StephenC on February 19, 2024, 02:24:30 PM
While the demographic trend is stark, remember that people get more conservative as they get older. Those 100% yes's today may be more WIIFM as they get older.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 19, 2024, 02:40:56 PM
Quote from: StephenC on February 19, 2024, 02:24:30 PMWhile the demographic trend is stark, remember that people get more conservative as they get older. Those 100% yes's today may be more WIIFM as they get older.

They will become more realistic, and will read the small print on taxes, health etc in relation to the UI proposal, but if these things have been worked out then they will still support change.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: weareros on February 19, 2024, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on February 19, 2024, 02:13:57 PM
Quote from: weareros on February 19, 2024, 02:02:24 PMHowever 55-64 is 64% to 28% in favour of Union. Is the disparity that great in that age group or would it indicate as they near retirement, good few nationalists opt for the status quo in the absence of a plan from Dublin/clarity over pensions they've paid into.

I don't think there's too much analysis required on that one. Support for the union is strongest in that age category because that's the age categry with the biggest majority of unionists. The protestant/unionist population is ageing one.

Union goes down to 48% again on 65+. Reality must set in. Crumbling NHS and pension higher in Republic. But agree the Union is depending on a greying vote as one can see at any Jim Allister Orange Hall rant.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Main Street on February 19, 2024, 04:21:05 PM
That poll posed an interesting question,
do you want to remain or do you want to leave?
  as most know by now that 'leave' is a dirty word, full of unknowns
and that 'stay' is by far the safe & sound social/economic option :) 

Nevertheless, I'd regard the poll as more positive for a UI in the future than I would've thought.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on February 20, 2024, 04:07:32 PM
The Cutehoors doing well it seems while us lot are on the hind tit....


https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/southern-irish-counties-are-eus-richest-region/a647546658.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: armaghniac on February 26, 2024, 07:31:39 PM
A lot of blather in the comments here about the NHS, how often do these people go to the doctor?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2024/feb/26/ireland-unity-brexit-britain#comment-166669671
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: Rossfan on March 05, 2024, 02:16:01 PM

Hmmmmmm.....

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/more-alliance-party-members-would-vote-for-irish-unity-than-to-remain-in-uk-survey/a691093736.html
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: balladmaker on March 05, 2024, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 05, 2024, 02:16:01 PMHmmmmmm.....

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/more-alliance-party-members-would-vote-for-irish-unity-than-to-remain-in-uk-survey/a691093736.html

The train has well and truly left the station and it's only heading in one direction ... just a matter of how long it takes to get there, and when it does, what does the destination look like.
Title: Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
Post by: johnnycool on March 05, 2024, 03:42:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 05, 2024, 02:16:01 PMHmmmmmm.....

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/more-alliance-party-members-would-vote-for-irish-unity-than-to-remain-in-uk-survey/a691093736.html

I've been saying this for a while now.

Alliance is strong in mostly unionist dominated areas (MLA's) where an increasing Nationalist population are voting tactically to oust Unionist parties as well as Alliance picking up on the disillusioned unionist voters.

It was more than just unionist voters who would vote for the status quo in a border poll who are voting Alliance currently.