Cost of Northern Ireland

futurehope

gurramok wrote: »

Good Friday agreement says otherwise.

You're a character gurramok!:D

Republicans were responsible directly or indirectly for 3500 deaths, countless mutilations and the destruction of Ulster's economy all in defiance of democracy - and YOU think that signing The Belfast Agreement washes that all away. TOO LATE, my friend, the precedent has been set.

mac_iomhair

futurehope wrote: »

You're a character gurramok!:D

Republicans were responsible directly or indirectly for 3500 deaths, countless mutilations and the destruction of Ulster's economy all in defiance of democracy - and YOU think that signing The Belfast Agreement washes that all away. TOO LATE, my friend, the precedent has been set.

WUM

gurramok

futurehope wrote: »

You're a character gurramok!:D

Republicans were responsible directly or indirectly for 3500 deaths, countless mutilations and the destruction of Ulster's economy all in defiance of democracy - and YOU think that signing The Belfast Agreement washes that all away. TOO LATE, my friend, the precedent has been set.

You're a character too futurehope

So which is it you aspire to-

Self determination of the 'Ulster British' OR the self-determination of the people of NI as a whole?

futurehope

Deedsie wrote: »

The Agreement's main provisions included the:

principle that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland could only follow a majority vote of its citizens.

When you say a majority vote of it's citizens, does this mean a majority of those who are legible to vote in any border poll, or those who actually vote?

futurehope

gurramok wrote: »

You're a character too futurehope

So which is it you aspire to-

Self determination of the 'Ulster British' OR the self-determination of the people of NI as a whole?

Both. Northern Ireland and The Irish Free State were set up to accommodate the two peoples on The Island of Ireland, namely The Irish and The Ulster British. Of course some Irish remained in NI and some Ulster British remained in The Irish Free State. Should the majority of Northern Ireland's citizens decide to leave The UK, I would respect that, but with the proviso that The Ulster British people could then exercise their free will. In such a case, re-partition might be necessary.

gurramok

futurehope wrote: »

Both. Northern Ireland and The Irish Free State were set up to accommodate the two peoples on The Island of Ireland, namely The Irish and The Ulster British. Of course some Irish remained in NI and some Ulster British remained in The Irish Free State. Should the majority of Northern Ireland's citizens decide to leave The UK, I would respect that, but with the proviso that The Ulster British people could then exercise their free will. In such a case, re-partition might be necessary.

Thought those Ulster British identified as Irish, i thought wrong

So, if a border poll goes against the 'Ulster British', its time to redraw the borders.

Is this the policy of any of the Unionist parties?

Richard

Maybe this is being hypocrytical as I often read these posts and sometimes reply, but why do these threads keep going over the same things? I think posts seem to cover a wide range of views and many posters do think for themselves rather than follow tribal lines.

But can't we just have one thread that deals with this issue rather than a multitude of threads?!

futurehope

gurramok said:

Thought those Ulster British identified as Irish, i thought wrong

I don't know, have you asked them all?

So, if a border poll goes against the 'Ulster British', its time to redraw the borders.

You might well be right. That's if The UK agrees to seed territory at all (or even call a border poll for that matter - it's at The UK Secretary of State's sole discretion after all).

Is this the policy of any of the Unionist parties?

I don't know. I wonder if any of them have a policy for Ireland being submerged by global warming? Or a policy for aliens invading? Or a policy on any other unlikely event?:rolleyes:

jonsnow

futurehope wrote: »

gurramok said:





it's at The UK Secretary of State's sole discretion after all).



:rolleyes:

If the majority of people living in the north want to join the republic then the secretary of state will rubber-stamp their decision.If the british Government felt it should hold another border poll I,m sure it will.and once they do that then under the Good Friday Agreement they will hold a fresh one every seven years.
While it is unlikely that in the near future their will be a united Ireland who knows what the future will bring.and if the majority vote in favour then the republic will get the whole 6 counties.There will be no repartition.That will be that.and futurehope its spelt cede not seed.

futurehope

jonsnow wrote: »

If the majority of people living in the north want to join the republic then the secretary of state will rubber-stamp their decision.If the british Government felt it should hold another border poll I,m sure it will.and once they do that then under the Good Friday Agreement they will hold a fresh one every seven years.
While it is unlikely that in the near future their will be a united Ireland who knows what the future will bring.and if the majority vote in favour then the republic will get the whole 6 counties.There will be no repartition.That will be that.and futurehope its spelt cede not seed.

What I find so charming about Nationalist Ireland is it's incredible optimism. It reminds me of that old song:

"tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you tomorrow, you're only a day away..."

[MOD EDIT - If you don't have something to say about the issue, don't include it in your post. - GY]

jonsnow

glad we could help each other out.By the way I knew all the grammatical errors but as its an internet forum i often just write quickly and say to hell with it.But as you were consistently misspelling cede I just thought I,d give you a heads up as it obviously wasn,t a typo.

ilkhanid

Look, any talk about repartition is nonsense. The problems of the North are bad enough as they are without opening a Pandora's box of balkanization. We have enough terrifying examples from Yugoslavia and the Caucausus to cool the ardour of the most ardent Orangeman.
The Unionists have put their eggs in the basket of the territory of NI as the arena of democratic choice and they will not crazy enough to demand democracy by ethnic choice when the time comes. The North is well mixed up by now, more so than in 1921 and re-partition would involve population transfer to be effective....with all that implies. What would this entity consist of? Antrim,part of Down, part of Derry, bits of Armagh and Tyrone? This state-even if it managed to exist-would, in the areas of economic viability,international recognition and stability, join such basket cases as North Cyprus,South Ossetia and trans-Dniestr. By-or if-the time comes that a majority want re-unification, then wiser counsels will have prevailed after a period of consolidation and peace, making nightmare scenarios such as this very unlikely.
And the people of Britain do not regard the loyalists as their kith-and-kin, so I'd be sceptical of any ideas of some sentimental swing towards supporting then in some future trouble. They think of all the people in the North as Irish,whether some of them have the Union flag wrapped around them or not.

jank

N.I. is the arsehole of western Europe. The Brits don't want it. N.I had the chance to rule itself but unfortunately it turned into a bigoted sectarian government/society on par with South Africa of the time. I am not sure if the majority of Irish people want it either. I think Marco economics will dictate the future of the north not some loudmouths on the Falls or Shankhill Road.

Ping Chow Chi

ilkhanid wrote: »

And the people of Britain do not regard the loyalists as their kith-and-kin, so I'd be sceptical of any ideas of some sentimental swing towards supporting then in some future trouble. They think of all the people in the North as Irish,whether some of them have the Union flag wrapped around them or not.

I identify the people of the north as my 'kith and kin'

OS119

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I identify the people of the north as my 'kith and kin'

i don't, and i'm English, lived all my 35 years in the UK.

i haven't seen any 'kith and kin' feeling in any of the places i've lived in the UK, i know there's quite a bit in Scotland, but the hard political reality is that it's England that will be required to pay for NI, and no English politician ever lost votes by slagging off the 'Unionists' who, for the 50 years they held sway in NI, pissed on those they had responsibility for and went mad whenever the 'beloved motherland' stuck its nose into the way they ran the place.

we've been reluctantly happy to spend blood and treasure ensuring that NI didn't fall into a Balkan-style civil war, and to uphold that principle of of self-determination (however flawed the starting point may have been), but i'm afraid that as soon as 50%+1 of the population of NI want away then the union is history. we don't have an emotional link to the place or its people, we certainly could do without the cost, we could do without having to spend 10% of our intelligence resourses on the place, and we don't really like being associated with people whose political parties have to be 'watched' so that they don't start fcuking people over just because of their religion.

riddance. rubbish. good. bad. to.

getz

jank wrote: »

N.I. is the arsehole of western Europe. The Brits don't want it. N.I had the chance to rule itself but unfortunately it turned into a bigoted sectarian government/society on par with South Africa of the time. I am not sure if the majority of Irish people want it either. I think Marco economics will dictate the future of the north not some loudmouths on the Falls or Shankhill Road.

do you honestly believe that everything in the republic is perfect ? i can assure you it isent-only in dublin last year a english worker won over 20,000 euros because he received abuse and discrimination just because he was english.anglophobia is alive and well still in the republic and YOU have just proved it-it is the people in the north who will decide there own future -not you or me or british or republican goverments

Deedsie

futurehope wrote: »

When you say a majority vote of it's citizens, does this mean a majority of those who are legible to vote in any border poll, or those who actually vote?

Sure thats a crazy question. You cant force people to vote. If they are under 18 the UK government do not give them the right to vote. If they choose not to vote its there own problem.

Majority means 850,001 based on your 1.7M population of eligible voters.

Could you show us somewhere that it is indicated that anything more than this is required in a referendum?

Repartition was touted before but was discarded, the parties and both governments have committed to the GFA. If anyone tries to row back on there commitment, they will have as much right as a place at the negotiation table as the Loyalist para yet to decommission.

OS119

getz wrote: »

do you honestly believe that everything in the republic is perfect ? i can assure you it isent-only in dublin last year a english worker won over 20,000 euros because he received abuse and discrimination just because he was english.anglophobia is alive and well still in the republic and YOU have just proved it-it is the people in the north who will decide there own future -not you or me or british or republican goverments

actually what he's saying is that the Brits want rid, and while the South says it wants it, as soon as the serious cost forecasts come in(as well as finally having so share a political system with these 'delightful' people) then the Souths ardour fror NI will cool very rapidly.

getz

OS119 wrote: »

actually what he's saying is that the Brits want rid, and while the South says it wants it, as soon as the serious cost forecasts come in(as well as finally having so share a political system with these 'delightful' people) then the Souths ardour fror NI will cool very rapidly.

yes i know what you are saying -but i and can also understand why the politics in the north is the way it is ,since the 1920 people living in the north felt that they were under siege,with strong ant/brit feelings from the republic many protestant families had to flee across the border ,from the ira ect ,the protestant population in the republic just vanished, yet in the north the catholic population increased despite the bigitory that was practiced

guinnessdrinker

futurehope wrote: »

It could happen. The UK would define what areas of it's sovereign territory it would be prepared to seed to The ROI, a vote would take place in those areas and if passed they would join The ROI. I don't see any of this happening by the way.:rolleyes:

I don't make threats.

Futurehope, seeing as how the partition of Ireland was a failure the first time around do you really think a repartition would work a second time, being honest?

Deedsie

getz wrote: »

yes i know what you are saying -but i and can also understand why the politics in the north is the way it is ,since the 1920 people living in the north felt that they were under siege,with strong ant/brit feelings from the republic many protestant families had to flee across the border ,from the ira ect ,the protestant population in the republic just vanished, yet in the north the catholic population increased despite the bigitory that was practiced

Has anyone ever examined why that happened on the Northern side of the border?

jank

getz wrote: »

do you honestly believe that everything in the republic is perfect ? i can assure you it isent-only in dublin last year a english worker won over 20,000 euros because he received abuse and discrimination just because he was english.anglophobia is alive and well still in the republic and YOU have just proved it-it is the people in the north who will decide there own future -not you or me or british or republican goverments

So how did I prove that anglophobia is alive and well. You think I am an anglophobe?

Please explain or withdraw the remarks.

Also I re-read my post 3 times I havent yet seen where I have said or even implied that the Republic is perfect.

getz

Deedsie wrote: »

Has anyone ever examined why that happened on the Northern side of the border?

i would think it is always better to live in a welfare state if you have a large family, people will always go to live and work in in times of hardship -take the uk mainland over 24% of the population have a irish ancestor

getz

jank wrote: »

So how did I prove that anglophobia is alive and well. You think I am an anglophobe?

Please explain or withdraw the remarks.

Also I re-read my post 3 times I havent yet seen where I have said or even implied that the Republic is perfect.

ok you have called the north quote--bigoted sectarian goverment-SOCIETY ,these people are british so thats anglophobia-and the only reason you are posting on the threads is because you think the provence should be under the rule of the republic of ireland despite their right of vote

futurehope

ilkhanid said:

The North is well mixed up by now, more so than in 1921

Wrong - segregation is worse.

And the people of Britain do not regard the loyalists as their kith-and-kin, so I'd be sceptical of any ideas of some sentimental swing towards supporting then in some future trouble. They think of all the people in the North as Irish,whether some of them have the Union flag wrapped around them or not.

Nationalist myth.

futurehope

jank said:

N.I. is the arsehole of western Europe.

Care to expand on that?

The Brits don't want it.

Then why've they hung around for nearly a hundred years? They could have left in 1922, or earlier. I'd love to know why you think they've stayed so long.

N.I had the chance to rule itself but unfortunately it turned into a bigoted sectarian government/society on par with South Africa of the time.

In what way was it on a par with South Africa?

I am not sure if the majority of Irish people want it either.

You may be getting somewhere now.

I think Marco economics will dictate the future of the north not some loudmouths on the Falls or Shankhill Road.

Ulster's future has never been more secure - as part of The UK. Check out the opinion polls.

ilkhanid

"Futurehope, seeing as how the partition of Ireland was a failure the first time around do you really think a repartition would work a second time, being honest? "


So....if after this repartition takes place-which would look like spilt milk on a map-what happens if the residual nationalist minority in that area starts to become larger? Will there be a demand for a re-repartition...and so on until we are left with the state of Larne?:D

"Wrong - segregation is worse". But these segregrated streets are still often adjacent to each other, whether in Ballymena, Craigavon or Belfast. So this repartition will demand a number of mini Berlin walls...even more than those that already exist.That sounds like an interesting scenario.

"Nationalist myth." Only every British person I have spoken to, regard the inhabitants of NI as irish and have no great love for them....perhaps I spoke to the wrong people?

futurehope

Deedsie wrote: »

Sure thats a crazy question. You cant force people to vote. If they are under 18 the UK government do not give them the right to vote. If they choose not to vote its there own problem.

Majority means 850,001 based on your 1.7M population of eligible voters.

Sorry, you seem to have missed my point. Where in The Belfast Agreement does it define whether the majority required in a border poll to trigger a UK withdrawal is a majority of the votes passed, or a majority of those legible to vote. For instance, what if the turnout is 5% - what happens then?

Please quote me the exact section of The Belfast Agreement concerned.

OS119

futurehope wrote: »

Nationalist myth.

err.... unionist myth actually.

i don't actually think i've ever met an English person who has expessed any 'pro NI' views - and i'm English, mid-thirties, university educated, politically aware if not active due to my occupation, and fairly widely travelled with a pretty wide social circle.

unlucky.

futurehope

OS119 wrote: »

we've been reluctantly happy to spend blood and treasure ensuring that NI didn't fall into a Balkan-style civil war, and to uphold that principle of of self-determination (however flawed the starting point may have been), but i'm afraid that as soon as 50%+1 of the population of NI want away then the union is history. we don't have an emotional link to the place or its people, we certainly could do without the cost, we could do without having to spend 10% of our intelligence resourses on the place, and we don't really like being associated with people whose political parties have to be 'watched' so that they don't start fcuking people over just because of their religion.

Well, having read that beautiful speech, I have to say, that I don't feel any 'emotional link' to you. Fortunately I know many, many people in England who don't share your strange views.

As a matter of interest, why is an 'Englishman' posting on an Irish political forum? What's your interest?