united ireland

New_Departure06

Wicknight wrote:

Simple fact of the issue is that a united Ireland won't improve anything for anyone, and will probably make things worse, economically and in relation to terrorism on both sides, so whats the point apart from making a bunch of republicans happy?

Northen Ireland is a democracy. Whats the different between it being a democracy part of the UK and being a democracy part of the Republic? Either way it ends up being a small provence working inside a much larger country.

Local government is the way forward for Northern Ireland, with in the structure of a European unified economy. A united Ireland would be pointless, and strip away local power from the actual people in Ulster.

Partition has given Donegal a 17% rate of unemployment. It would gain from a UI.

NI is an artificial state. You may consider that a democracy. I consider partition something to be tolerated until it can be changed by consent North and South. I consider the creation of NI to be a disastrous mistake that has led to thousands of deaths.

Partition has consigned the North to endless signle-issue politics. A UI would remove the constitutional question so that NI voters would be freed to focus on health, education, economy etc.

And never again will Irish people be subject to collusion with Loyalists by the British state and securocrats to kill them.

Vulpiner

I dont see how Northen Ireland is any more artificial than the Republic. With many people who want a United Ireland it seems to be the case of obtaining "symmetry", of having the island under one rule so as to make it look good on a map.;)

New_Departure06

Vulpiner wrote:

I dont see how Northen Ireland is any more artificial than the Republic. With many people who want a United Ireland it seems to be the case of obtaining "symmetry", of having the island under one rule so as to make it look good on a map.;)

They are both artificial but our state has more moral legitimacy because we fought for our freedom. We didn't have the high connections the Unionists did in the British Establishment who were always going to hand them partition on a plate. And because we treated our minority a hell of a lot better than the Northern one did. Also the Southern state reflects the wishes of the majority of Irish people for independence whereas the Northern state reflects a subversion of that wish in 1918.

Tar.Aldarion

billy the squid wrote:

firstly to answer this question. The date was 2024, and the episode was The High Ground. Banned on RTE and BBC, Sky showed an edited version of the episode

keep an eye on Channel 6 as it should be coming up in a couple of months on that channel.

Why was it banned, nonsense tbh.
I was going to post tocorrect the date to 2024.

Benster

The way I see it, being from NI and all, at the moment it's only the extremists and idealists on the so-called "republican" side up home who are calling for a UI. The staunch Unionists/Loyalists will always oppose it as they have had it drummed into them from an early age by their staunchly Loyalist parents that it is The One Thing That Shall Not Come To Pass. And the converse thing happens on the other side where it is The Thing Ye Shall Fight Fir.

The middle classes don't care as much for the idealist reasons for unification because they are the folk who just go about their business and as long as nobody is blowing up the places where they work or live, they are happy enough. However, if they saw the rate of income tax in the South, they may register a desire to stay as they are and continue paying 25% instead of 42%. When faced with the question of a UI, most would answer "What's in it for me?". They do long for their politicians to Do Something though, and change the constant headlines of "Parties Deadlocked" on TV and in the papers.

Things are starting to change now though, as the Labour govt is sick of these headlines too and also sick of pouring in the billions of pounds that was highlighted further up this thread, and seeing little or no change for it. As you've probably heard, their current strategy is to force politicians back to talking to eachother and hopefully start earning their salaries by governing NI, by altering how NI Inc is payed for, ie. more of the money comes from the people who live there instead of the British coffers.

As you may know, public services are paid for in part by rates paid by each household. So far these rates have been moderate, ie. no cause for riots in the street, you just pay them and the bins are collected, roads are swept and so on. Coming on-stream within a year are higher rates and also new water charges, which folk are none to happy about as the level of service provided will not be changing. Most people see this move as the govt saying "Well, if the politicians YOU elected do not do their job and govern you, WE will do the governing from here, and you can expect more in the future too." in the hope that the populace makes its voice heard and the politicians are forced back to Stormont (in some ways a naive ruse, but also a simple one).

(Thanks for reading so far :-)

The net effect of all this is going to be that life gets a bit more expensive for NI folk over the coming years. We get a bit more practice in paying our way and demanding value for maney in public spending. We grow up a bit, if you like. And then by that stage the imbalance in the amount of taxation and other monetary demands on the population will be less apparent between the North and the South. The biggest reason (I think) for Northerners not wanting a UI will no longer exist, it will be more beneficial to us to join the South and less of a perceived burden on the South if we did.

Just my €10.02

B.

New_Departure06

The middle classes don't care as much for the idealist reasons for unification because they are the folk who just go about their business and as long as nobody is blowing up the places where they work or live, they are happy enough. However, if they saw the rate of income tax in the South, they may register a desire to stay as they are and continue paying 25% instead of 42%. When faced with the question of a UI, most would answer "What's in it for me?". They do long for their politicians to Do Something though, and change the constant headlines of "Parties Deadlocked" on TV and in the papers.

You don't seem to understand how PAYE works down here. There are a number of rates of taxation. The bottom rate is 20% and the top rate is 42%. That's how it works in the UK as well and the rates aren't that different. Our direct taxes are lower than the UK.

As you may know, public services are paid for in part by rates paid by each household. So far these rates have been moderate, ie. no cause for riots in the street, you just pay them and the bins are collected, roads are swept and so on. Coming on-stream within a year are higher rates and also new water charges, which folk are none to happy about as the level of service provided will not be changing. Most people see this move as the govt saying "Well, if the politicians YOU elected do not do their job and govern you, WE will do the governing from here, and you can expect more in the future too." in the hope that the populace makes its voice heard and the politicians are forced back to Stormont (in some ways a naive ruse, but also a simple one).

No residential water-charges down here.

Benster

New_Departure06 wrote:

You don't seem to understand how PAYE works down here. There are a number of rates of taxation. The bottom rate is 20% and the top rate is 42%. That's how it works in the UK as well and the rates aren't that different. Our direct taxes are lower than the UK.

Oh, I know that, I've worked in Dublin for years. Mind you, anyone on a decent wage is going to be on 42%. I don't know anyone who isn't.

I'm not going to start a taxation debate, but my point is the perception, and for many, the reality is that people in the Republic pay higher taxes in general, direct and indirect. If the question was asked about joining in the next couple of years, the ludicrous VRT rates and higher car tax alone could be enough to make the majority go "Nah". (but maybe not the lower cost of fuel )

But what I'm saying is that as it will more than likely be many years before the situation even edges closer to UI becoming a reality, the economic differences between north and south that make the better off in the north prefer to stay governed by the UK would probably no longer exist. For example, Brussels may come down hard on the Republic over VRT and it is lowered or abolished, or the rates/water charges in the north become so expensive they are a millstone around folks' neck. These kinds of changes may come about that the economic reasons for staying apart voiced by people on both sides of the border are no longer a factor.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

There seem to be two threads of similar themes knocking about at the moment, and it seems to be the same people who are debating them. United Ireland and United Europe.

There is a belief that we don't want a united Europe, because we're worried we'll lose out independance and our national identiy.

Theer is also a believe that we want a united Ireland, because we couldn't give a f-u about someone else's independance and national identity...!

Just a thought...

Pocari Sweat

Benster wrote:

Oh, I know that, I've worked in Dublin for years. Mind you, anyone on a decent wage is going to be on 42%. I don't know anyone who isn't.


Just to chip in there, you actually get taxed on the lower rate of taxation whatever your pay (same as in the UK) until you reach a certain amount of earnings say 50,000 euro or sterling for example and then after this amount get charged at a higher rate on the remainder, not the lower amount you have already earned and paid a lower rate of tax on.

In both the UK and Ireland, overall taxation with all the indirect taxes being taken into account mean we all pay anything from 50% to over 75% back to the tax coffers depending on what we earn and also very importantly what we spend money on; ie, big smokers, drinkers, jeep owners; extra chunky indirect taxes, VAT etc paid out.

Pocari Sweat

As for a United Ireland, or keeping the status quo, there are just too many things people would find to get grumpy about or argue one way is better than another, no matter how people imagine the grass is going to be greener.

You probably wouldn't want to include the North in a UI just yet with a lot of the remainder of all the past 30 years of sh*te. Give it another couple of decades and then there may be the nostalgia of the united ireland of the past and a movement by a new generation.

LordSutch

But was there ever a "United ireland" in the first place? from what I can gather the island was never United because there are two distinct tribes and identities on this island. The majority of people up North are British, there identity is British, their history is British and their place is within the UK as part of the British family that is the UK!

I suspect that trying to change their perspective on their heritage is lost on Unionists especially since the Troubles which hardened their resolve to remain British!

I believe that closer cooperation between North & South can only be a good thing but constantly trying to persuade any country or people that they are something that they are not can only result in permanent hostility and bad feeling.
we MUST accept that they feel differently about their identy.

Imagine telling the Scots that they are not Scottish, or the welsh that they are not really Welsh! identity runs deep in any population the World over.

I think we are all agreed that if the majority of people living in the North wish Northern ireland to leave the UK then that is what will happen, but at what cost? hypothetically speaking in fifty years time (if) they vote 51% to 49% to leave the UK will that solve the problem? I dont think so.

Hotblack Desiato

Irrespective of a majority wish to join, let's see NI function as a society before we even consider a UI.
There's a hell of a long way to go before NI politics starts to concentrate on policies not tribalism. 80+ years after the civil war here it still defines our politics.

A Dub in Glasgo

An interesting take on the UI debate will involve the apparent unease within England & Scotland about what the UK actually is. This issue has been bubbling for a while now especially with a devolved Scottish Parliament, the West Lothian Question and the news that English people do not want a person representing a Scottish constituency becoming British prime minister (bad news for gordon Brown). Are we seeing the slow disintegration of the UK? Let's hope so.

Pocari Sweat

Georgie Best wasn't English and did not play for the English squad or Irish squad, he played for N. Ireland.

The Scots are British but don't call them English. The Welsh are British but I don't think again they can be called English.

N. Ireland as the name suggests is Irish in the fact that it has got "Ireland in its name and is on the Island of Ireland but it is not politically part of the Republic of Ireland, it is its own province and currently part of Britain politically, but is by its nature Irish, with Irish accents spoken, Irish names of the people and its towns and the resting place of St. Patrick - although some may mistake him for being Welsh, he was actually, from Britain or Roman Britain.

Fairly f*cked up I would call it, but that is life.

LordSutch

Pocari Sweat wrote:

St. Patrick - although some may mistake him for being Welsh, he was actually, from Britain or Roman Britain.

If St Patrick came from Wales, then he was from Britain!
Britain is an island........................................

ISAW

Vulpiner wrote:

I dont see how Northen Ireland is any more artificial than the Republic.

It was created out of a struggle for Irish people to become their own masters and not be ruled over by a minority of different thinking elite minded people. Its creation rendered a position where there was total State aparthide for at least 50 years.

This did NOT happen in the South/Republic.

N Ireland has a parliament which neither controls all that happen withing N Ireland nor controls domestic and foreign policy of the UK.
this does not apply to the Republic. The Republic is a soverign State. the people of Ireland voted for it.

With many people who want a United Ireland it seems to be the case of obtaining "symmetry", of having the island under one rule so as to make it look good on a map.;)

This may sound funny but historically speaking before roads and communicationse.g. railways which allowed maps to become widely available in pamphlets and newspapers for example, seaways were the "highways". The Dal Riada would have thought of themselves as a "nation" but were not in one geographic island.

Wide availability of maps and growth of railways were co incident. So it is part of the modern psyche that "one island one people" applies. Indeed this applies to Britian! The Isle of Man and channel islands have their own parliaments and Gurensney prople for example dio not think of themselves as "Roast Beef".

So you do make a valid cultural point. the constitutional point is the binding one however. when the majority of the peopl;e north and south want it it must happen. The majority overall and the majority in the south already want it. The near majority of the North may have dwindled but it is I guess at least 40 per cent. When it will it go over 50 is something I do not know.

Parsley

Vulpiner wrote:

I dont see how Northen Ireland is any more artificial than the Republic.

I do: Ireland is a geographic and cultural entity going back hundreds of years, NI is a line fairly randomly drawn across a map in order to protect a privileged minority from natives.

Sand

I do: Ireland is a geographic and cultural entity going back hundreds of years, NI is a line fairly randomly drawn across a map in order to protect a privileged minority from natives.

Ulster Unionists would argue that Northern Ireland/Ulster is a seperate cultural entity going back hundreds of years - to the 17th century anyway, which predates many existing, legitimate nations. That you split people into "privledged minority" and "native" shows you agree with them.

Either way - it doesnt matter a toss if people dont want to accept the majority in NI prefer the UK to a United Ireland. They do. And that support crosses traditional lines. Even Catholic nationalists only want a tolerable state (which has largely been achieved by political & policing reform), with the benefits of British treasury funding. Unless you hold a vote in NI, then your opinion on the matter means jack. And even if you did have a vote in NI, I have a vote in the Republic (the real one, not the fantasy version that exists only in Provo wet dreams) and I will exercise it to express my opinion on the matter should I ever be asked. (No, in case youre curious).

There is a belief that we don't want a united Europe, because we're worried we'll lose out independance and our national identiy.

Theer is also a believe that we want a united Ireland, because we couldn't give a f-u about someone else's independance and national identity...!

Just a thought...

Thats the great thing about nationalism and tribalism - it doesnt need to make any sense whatsoever.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Ulster Unionists would argue that Northern Ireland/Ulster is a seperate cultural entity going back hundreds of years

Ulster predates NI, why didn't the British want Ulster? You know as well as I that if they did, they could not ignore democracy. In fact, they did ignore democracy and partitioned Ulster into the artificial 6 county state. It is the antithesis of democracy.

Parsley

Sand wrote:

Ulster Unionists would argue that Northern Ireland/Ulster is a seperate cultural entity going back hundreds of years - to the 17th century anyway, which predates many existing, legitimate nations. That you split people into "privledged minority" and "native" shows you agree with them..

I don't agree with anyone in particular on this, I couldn't give a toss about NI/united ireland, it's a matter of no importance. I just refer to the fact that the six counties are an artificial construcion; they include the unionist dominated areas of ulster, plus two more counties (Fermanagh and Tyrone) thrown in to give it some geographic area, while the other Ulster counties were left out because there were too many catholics.

Sand

Ulster predates NI, why didn't the British want Ulster? You know as well as I that if they did, they could not ignore democracy. In fact, they did ignore democracy and partitioned Ulster into the artificial 6 county state. It is the antithesis of democracy.

Only if your definition of democracy is tyranny by the majority - which it probably isnt when it comes to Scottish independance, the English being the majority on the island of Britain. [And again despite all the hype only a minority of people in Scotland want independance- and the majority of English people would probably wave the Scots off with a cheery goodbye if they were to offer to leave the UK and pay their own way, much as theyd rejoice if they ever managed to offload NI onto us.] The majority of people in NI do not wish to be part of this state. Thats the plain reality. Whinging about it and refusing to believe they have a case wont change that.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Snip

I think you posted in the wrong thread as vitually all that was irrelevant to this thread. Try this one as it is most relevant to your post.

Sand

I think you posted in the wrong thread as vitually all that was irrelevant to this thread. Try this one as it is most relevant to your post.

Pffft - your dodging your own hypocrisy on the issue of democratic mandate for a state. NI is undemocratic because it wasnt voted for by the majority of the people on the island of Ireland, but Id doubt youd accept that legitimate, democratic Scottish independance required a majority of the people on the island of Britain voting for it. Like I said before, nationalism doesnt have to make any sense.

AdrianR

after 10 years of near peace on our island , will we ever see a United Ireland in our lifetime.
Do boarders care ?
are you republican at heart ?
or are you closet unionists ?

I do believe that there will be a UI in some shape make or form a lot sooner than a most people think. This may seem like a rash statement but it’s based on the following facts:

NI Population:
The catholic birth rate is higher than that of protestants and has been for the last 20 years, so in NI for the age of 20 and younger there is a majority of catholics. Back in 1921 there was reckoned to be a 2/3 majority protestant population, so at the opposite end of the age spectrum protestants are 2 to 1 in the majority so they are actually dieing at twice the rate. All this suggests that there will be a majority catholic population is about 20 years time. While a majority catholic population wouldn’t necessarily mean a UI it would mean that there could be one if they choose so.

Unionist attitudes:
Does anyone remember some Irish ministers going to Storment for meetings in the 80s? does anyone remember the “Ulster says no” protests at the time? Brian Cohen and a few other Irish ministers were in Storment a few months ago, the one thing that struck me about the visit was that there was absolutely no unionist protests of any kind.
I remember a number of years ago (maybe 12 years ago) Gusty Spence was asked in an interview if he could ever see the day of a UI. His answer surprised me, he said that ultimately it was probably going to have to happen, but not while the catholic church had such an influence in the running of the southern state. I would have expected an explicit negative answer to this question from a man like him. I could go on and give other examples, but in the last 20 years “Ulster says no” has become “Ulster says maybe”. Attitudes are definitely changing maybe it’s the realisation that they are eventually going to loose control.
A few years ago while living in England I shared a house with a guy from Derry. His belief was that the shoe should firmly be put on the other foot once they have control, I’m sure he’s not the only catholic in NI with this attitude. If you were an NI unionist had had a choice of an independent NI with a Catholic majority or an UI with a larger population (Us down here) who were more sympathetic towards you, which would you choose?

Economics:
The difference in standards of living etc can and will be sorted out over time. That poster from NI whose based in Dublin (Sorry don’t remember his name, too lazy too look it up) made some very good points regarding this.

Blackjack

billy the squid wrote:

No I do not see a united Ireland happening within my lifetime. There is too much hatred going on up there between the two communities. The people down south are content to make money. They look more to brussels than to Belfast. Uniting Ireland would put a strain on our economy, what with the addition of a bloated civil service, and a population of disgruntled unionists.

To be hones, both sides nationalist and unionists need to grow up before they would be welcomed by me into a united ireland. The republican movement needs to get its disadents under control, they need to convince them that their peurile view on the Northern Ireland question is flawed.

The Unionists need to stop trying to be ultra brittish. Even the brittish "on the mainland" don't carry on the way they do.

What Billy said.

ISAW

Sand wrote:

Pffft - your dodging your own hypocrisy on the issue of democratic mandate for a state. NI is undemocratic because it wasnt voted for by the majority of the people on the island of Ireland, but Id doubt youd accept that legitimate, democratic Scottish independance required a majority of the people on the island of Britain voting for it. Like I said before, nationalism doesnt have to make any sense.

Actually I think this is exactly what Scottish independence would require! If the majority of British voted for a seperate Scotland then that is what they would get! Mind you the "unionists" in NI don't want such a vote since the majority of British probably would vote for NI to leave the UK.

Constitutionally the UK has changed things so that the Unionists got their way. As things now stand the majority of NI (currently the Unionists) decide the future of NI. In the future that may and probably will change. In the past they had the sympathy of Britian and the government on their side. Now that they got what they wanted and Westminster has washed its hands of the decision to seceed they have a small majority of a minority of the UK juristiction.

Mighty_Mouse

The majority of people in NI do not wish to be part of this state. Thats the plain reality. Whinging about it and refusing to believe they have a case wont change that.

The point that the vast majority of republicans and people on this island voted for the GFA and principle of consent supports this.

Hence the IRA finito and purely political means of unification struggle pursued.

Now if we could only "persuad" unionists to work within the democratic structures they origionally supported ............................(buts whats that? :eek: the goalposts move again!!)

Anwyays. I have read much of this thread but I dont see where debate on the pursuit of unification can exists. Republicans want it peacefully and democratically, unionists are against it (and eventually will oppose it democratically).

IMO its gonna happen within 10-20 years of stable government in the north. Because at the end of the day whatever the politics all people in general want is a better life. Which is inherently linked to economics. I think most unionists will find that in an accomodating culturally-supportive united Ireland.

Sand

The point that the vast majority of republicans and people on this island voted for the GFA and principle of consent supports this.

Great! Why am I still seeing moany complaints with people thinking they can legally disprove the existence of Northern Ireland because the majority of people on the island didnt vote for it? Though, if you count the GFA referendum, they did vote for the border.... Either way, It exists, the majority of people on the other side of the border want it to remain, and as far as anyone sane this side of the border is concerned thats perfectly fine.

Now if we could only "persuad" unionists to work within the democratic structures they origionally supported ............................(buts whats that? the goalposts move again!!)

I guess they feel they cant work with people who wont support the police, celebrate terrorism against their voters, and consider organised crime figures to be "good republicans". Face facts, the atmosphere in NI was always difficult but it has been wholly poisoned by the way the Provos stabbed Trimble in the back after he took a leap of faith and entered government with them based on promises.

Do you seriously blame Paisley for not putting his political future and reputation, along with the interests of his voters, at the mercy of Gerry Adams given the treatment Trimble got? Would you do it? Trust someone whose already tricked a colleague of yours?

Like I said back in December 2004 when everyone was cheerleading for a deal then - a deal on paper means nothing. Unless there are "facts on the ground", a genuine desire to resolve issues and introduce sound government then whats on paper wont matter. Even if the DUP and SFIRA reach a deal in November it will collapse in a second the next time SFIRA are rumbled robbing a bank or murdering some poor bastard who crosses their path, and then try to pretend they didnt see nothing - honest guv!

To avoid that collapse, SFIRA would have to co-operate fully and openly with the PSNI - sacrificing "good republicans". This is something they are philisophically incapable of doing. If they accepted the PSNI as providing a legitimate police service, they undermine their own argument for Nationalist/Catholic freedom being impossible within the UK. If they dont accept the PSNI, then they will find it hard to co-operate with any PSNI investigation to the satisfaction of the DUP (Who will realistically not extend any benefit of the doubt to Gerry Adams given he still lies to them every time he pretends he was never in the IRA). If they dont co-operate with the PSNI, the new government collapses.

So until the Provos get their heads round the concept of accepting the PSNI and working with them - actions being very much more important here than some formula of words - then some pretty legalese on a page means jack. And SFIRA are still at this point only offering the DUP promises that theyll consider working with the PSNI at some point in the distant future. Thats not even close to whats required. And thats only one issue - there are a horde of tense, tribal issues where one side or the other has a political interest in not giving an inch.

IMO its gonna happen within 10-20 years of stable government in the north. Because at the end of the day whatever the politics all people in general want is a better life. Which is inherently linked to economics. I think most unionists will find that in an accomodating culturally-supportive united Ireland.

See above - SFIRA find it difficult to embrace the PSNI because theyre not interested in stable government in the north. If there is stable, just, non-sectarian government in the North then what cause is there for a United Ireland? SFIRA will always work to ensure the North is unstable and sectarian to boost their own arguments. And there is no sound economical reason for a United Ireland. The EU provides the same trade zone whichever side of the border your on. A functional Belfast Parliment could probably argue its case to Downing Street for a lower tax zone in exchange for reduced transfers from the British treasury. The British will bend over backwards to appease.

Thats the great thing about NI - if it goes to hell in a handbasket and will cost us money along with strife, we dont want it. If it works out and reaches the status of functioning, non-sectarian democracy (and the GFA only calls for a sectarian democracy) then they wont want to pass over their power and interests to Dublin - why would they remove their own power to make decisions about their "province" when its government is up, running, and working fine?

Mighty_Mouse

Though, if you count the GFA referendum, they did vote for the border....

Recognising "consent" as the only way a stable united Ireland can be achieved.
(as opposed to agreeing with partition)

and as far as anyone sane this side of the border is concerned thats perfectly fine

A lot of insane people running the the south so: "Fiannn Fail - the republican party"

Why am I still seeing moany complaints with people thinking they can legally disprove the existence of Northern Ireland because the majority of people on the island didnt vote for it? Though, if you count the GFA referendum

Its a pointless debate if you ask me. Won't change the reality of the border.

I guess they feel they cant work with people who wont support the police

Representing their constituents who have little problems like collusion and murder. A new beginning requires a new police force. But it'll get there. Not a biggy anymore.

wholly poisoned by the way the Provos stabbed Trimble in the back after he took a leap of faith and entered government with them based on promises

Sorry!!! :eek: :eek: Trimble could of been the hero the north needed if he could of just contained the bigot within himself. After extensive negotiations a planned process to restore the assembly was agreed on with Gerry Adams acting in good faith and "going first" ie "the war is over", massive decommissing in agreement with de chastelains original and cross-party agreed terms.

2 weeks before the election Trimble could of been the man to save the process. From left-field he pulls the requirement of photographs!! He try's to out-paisley paisley and loses the election, the process and his own party.

Noone in the world even dreamt of photographs as a requirement before that. Not one voter or political commentor would of required it. He could of won that election. And the next being the man to blow his trumpet as he finally beat the IRA into submission.

Avoided storment-gate, castlerea and the other crap thas been thrown in the road since.

I've nothing but contempt for him and anyone with half a brain within Unionism for trying such a short-sighted political cock-up.

Do you seriously blame Paisley for not putting his political future and reputation,

political future!!!Again :eek: His feckin 150 years old! Reputation!!! Reputation as what exactly. Do you honestly believe that Sinn Fein would suddenly collapse the process when Gerry Adams voted for paisley last time round?

SFIRA are rumbled robbing a bank or murdering some poor bastard who crosses their path, and then try to pretend they didnt see nothing - honest guv!

Oh yes the organised Sinn Fein/IRA Robert McCarthey pub-hit? Anyways with the IRA out of the way and non-existant even according to the junket group IMC you've no-one to blame.

with the PSNI - sacrificing "good republicans".

They will once there is a police force people trust. Instead they have told people if they feel comfortable approaching the police force then by all means, Alternatively approach a respected member of the community or a local priest.
And anyways. Let the PSNI do their own work .What party tells constituents to report their neighbour for breaking the law. Isnt that the job of the police force?

Thats the great thing about NI - if it goes to hell in a handbasket and will cost us money along with strife, we dont want it.

Who's we?