When & How could there be a united Ireland?

rovert

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

There are economic ones as well, I went through a few of these a few pages back.

Which were either shot down by another poster or hypothetical. If anything you made a case for Britain taking over all 36. In reality N.I. would cost us billions.

Denerick

The only way a United Ireland is possible is if politics in the North desensitises from the legacy of the past. This will take at least 50 years of peace (By no means guaranteed)

Step 2 would be the re-approachment and conciliation with our lost tribe up North. This means allowing them to march in Dublin, for one. They need to feel like citizens of the Republic and not harassed by self righteous Republicans on the one hand and scumbags on the other looking for a scrap and general chaos. If Ireland is ever to be united, it needs to embrace the Orange Order as a representative community of this island, with deep traditional and familial bonds. There is no other way around this. The Orange Order is not going to go away.

Step 3 would involve a lot of arm wringing over what would most likely be a federal solution, with a Stormont assembly having roughly the same powers under a Dáil government as it has under a Westminster government. This would be ideal for the Unionists as it would provide them with the appropriate political safeguards and it would also mean that they could have a sizable, though not decisive, political representation in Dublin. But they would have a majority in Belfast.

This all boils down to appeasing the Unionists and shafting the nationalists. But its the only way it will happen. It cannot and will not happen through force of arms. One would have to be seriously deluded to think that a few old men in rotting Belfast pubs could topple the British army with the force of their bootleg cigarettes. The dissidents have to be stopped, somehow, from breaking the progress of our generation.

Wolfe Tone

You and I are in agreement on some things Denerick.

I think a federal system is the way to go. Lumping in a few more TDs will not work. 50 years is realistic.

I will say it again, a UI is not just an extra six counties, it is a chance to start again. To build a fairer, more inclusive and better society based on the 1916 proclamation.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I have no doubt there will be a few flair ups but not on a huge scale.

Well if they do it by couties the ira will definately get involved, but i really can't see the uda or whatever them other ones are called getting involved as they haven't really done that much in the past compared to that ira, plus they were set up a 100 years ago for getting Northern Ireland set up.

owenc

Denerick wrote: »

The only way a United Ireland is possible is if politics in the North desensitises from the legacy of the past. This will take at least 50 years of peace (By no means guaranteed)

Step 2 would be the re-approachment and conciliation with our lost tribe up North. This means allowing them to march in Dublin, for one. They need to feel like citizens of the Republic and not harassed by self righteous Republicans on the one hand and scumbags on the other looking for a scrap and general chaos. If Ireland is ever to be united, it needs to embrace the Orange Order as a representative community of this island, with deep traditional and familial bonds. There is no other way around this. The Orange Order is not going to go away.

Step 3 would involve a lot of arm wringing over what would most likely be a federal solution, with a Stormont assembly having roughly the same powers under a Dáil government as it has under a Westminster government. This would be ideal for the Unionists as it would provide them with the appropriate political safeguards and it would also mean that they could have a sizable, though not decisive, political representation in Dublin. But they would have a majority in Belfast.

This all boils down to appeasing the Unionists and shafting the nationalists. But its the only way it will happen. It cannot and will not happen through force of arms. One would have to be seriously deluded to think that a few old men in rotting Belfast pubs could topple the British army with the force of their bootleg cigarettes. The dissidents have to be stopped, somehow, from breaking the progress of our generation.

Well the nationalists can just fit in, (and i'm sure after all the ranting about a pile of ****e over the years when they if they ever get a united ireland realise that it wasn't worthwhile.)

Step 2. That will never happen don't even consider it, alot of the Orangemen are ex uda people so would just go in there to cause trouble i know the type of them, plus the only ones in the Orange order now are scumbags lol from council estates brought up by low pay families who would tell them bad things about catholics i.e these people are more bitter, so they would also go in and cause trouble, the Orange Order has turned into a very bitter organisation over the years its not like it was when say my great granda was in it, and thats why so many people have left it, i mean years ago nearly every protestant family were in it meaning that it had hundreds of thousands of people in it, now it only has like 70,000 or something in it.

Denerick

owenc wrote: »

Well the nationalists can just fit in, (and i'm sure after all the ranting about a pile of ****e over the years when they if they ever get a united ireland realise that it wasn't worthwhile.)

Step 2. That will never happen don't even consider it, alot of the Orangemen are ex uda people so would just go in there to cause trouble i know the type of them, plus the only ones in the Orange order now are scumbags lol from council estates brought up by low pay families who would tell them bad things about catholics i.e these people are more bitter, so they would also go in and cause trouble, the Orange Order has turned into a very bitter organisation over the years its not like it was when say my great granda was in it, and thats why so many people have left it, i mean years ago nearly every protestant family were in it meaning that it had hundreds of thousands of people in it, now it only has like 70,000 or something in it.

Thats even more reason to accept the Orange Order and permit them to march. Showing them the other cheek will earn their trust, frantically whinging every time they march will earn their resentment and disdain. Which do you think is more likely to succeed in winning Orangemen over?

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I have no doubt there will be a few flair ups but not on a huge scale.

That's some terribly wishful thinking on your part. It's totally out of touch with the reality of the troubles to think that Loyalists will go so easily into a united Ireland. There have been bombings, shootings and killings in the struggle for Northern Ireland to find its place within the United Kingdom and there will be bombings, shootings and killings if Northern Ireland is reunited with the Republic.

I'll repeat my question - What's there to be gained from a United Ireland? All I can see is heartache.

owenc

Bebs wrote: »

That's some terribly wishful thinking on your part. It's totally out of touch with the reality of the troubles to think that Loyalists will go so easily into a united Ireland. There have been bombings, shootings and killings in the struggle for Northern Ireland to find its place within the United Kingdom and there will be bombings, shootings and killings if Northern Ireland is reunited with the Republic.

I'll repeat my question - What's there to be gained from a United Ireland? All I can see is heartache.

Why can't be people just shut up and leave it the way it is now, there is peace and quiet...

owenc

Denerick wrote: »

Thats even more reason to accept the Orange Order and permit them to march. Showing them the other cheek will earn their trust, frantically whinging every time they march will earn their resentment and disdain. Which do you think is more likely to succeed in winning Orangemen over?

Letting them march, but whatever way it works Northern Ireland will always be the way it is, it won't change i just know.

lugha

Bebs wrote: »

I'll repeat my question - What's there to be gained from a United Ireland? All I can see is heartache.

I’m afraid the unite Ireland project, like most projects rooted in nationalism, is driven by the heart rather than the head, and consequently the logic is inverted. i.e. the proponents decide that a united Ireland is the solution and then search desperately to identify a problem which it solves.
A united Ireland will not offer any opportunities that can not be attained without a UI and there is absolutely no evidence that any problems will be solved or that anyone, anywhere would be better off. At best, it may not make much difference but at worst, well heartache might be putting it very mildly .

Bebs

owenc wrote: »

Why can't be people just shut up and leave it the way it is now, there is peace and quiet...

Exactly! I for one would be happy to leave the North as a part of Britain if it means peace and prosperity for those living there and I think the same could be said for many Southerners, Unionists and even Nationalists.

owenc

Bebs wrote: »

Exactly! I for one would be happy to leave the North as a part of Britain if it means peace and prosperity for those living there and I think the same could be said for many Southerners, Unionists and even Nationalists.

Yes and overall its causing no one any problem.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Denerick wrote: »

The only way a United Ireland is possible is if politics in the North desensitises from the legacy of the past. This will take at least 50 years of peace (By no means guaranteed)

Step 2 would be the re-approachment and conciliation with our lost tribe up North. This means allowing them to march in Dublin, for one. They need to feel like citizens of the Republic and not harassed by self righteous Republicans on the one hand and scumbags on the other looking for a scrap and general chaos. If Ireland is ever to be united, it needs to embrace the Orange Order as a representative community of this island, with deep traditional and familial bonds. There is no other way around this. The Orange Order is not going to go away.

owenc wrote: »

Well the nationalists can just fit in, (and i'm sure after all the ranting about a pile of ****e over the years when they if they ever get a united ireland realise that it wasn't worthwhile.)

Step 2. That will never happen don't even consider it, alot of the Orangemen are ex uda people so would just go in there to cause trouble i know the type of them, plus the only ones in the Orange order now are scumbags lol from council estates brought up by low pay families who would tell them bad things about catholics i.e these people are more bitter, so they would also go in and cause trouble, the Orange Order has turned into a very bitter organisation over the years its not like it was when say my great granda was in it, and thats why so many people have left it, i mean years ago nearly every protestant family were in it meaning that it had hundreds of thousands of people in it, now it only has like 70,000 or something in it.

Denerick wrote: »

Thats even more reason to accept the Orange Order and permit them to march. Showing them the other cheek will earn their trust, frantically whinging every time they march will earn their resentment and disdain. Which do you think is more likely to succeed in winning Orangemen over?

Inclined to agree with Owen here. The OO won't want to march in Dublin. They see it as a foreign country they want nothing to do with. The politicians describe marching as an expression of their culture but in reality its popular because its anti-catholic.

They won't want to march in a united ireland because it would no longer represent triumphalism in that scenario

My mate was in a band when he was younger, says vast majority of those still in it are sectarian scum types.

owenc

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Inclined to agree with Owen here. The OO won't want to march in Dublin. They see it as a foreign country they want nothing to do with. The politicians describe marching as an expression of their culture but in reality its popular because its anti-catholic.

They won't want to march in a united ireland because it would no longer represent triumphalism in that scenario

My mate was in a band when he was younger, says vast majority of those still in it are sectarian scum types.

Yep i had family in it too away back and they all left becase they said that the people in it were scum as you say, they have their children in it and everything, theres a wee boy in my class in it and he is one sectarian bigot.. and the funny thing is these people think they are true protestants because they are in the uda and orange order, but tbh that isn't what being a protestant is about, its about going to church and not causing trouble like that, and the half of them haven't even been to church, the last time they were in it was too get baptised.

Denerick

Inclined to agree with Owen here. The OO won't want to march in Dublin. They see it as a foreign country they want nothing to do with. The politicians describe marching as an expression of their culture but in reality its popular because its anti-catholic.

They won't want to march in a united ireland because it would no longer represent triumphalism in that scenario

My mate was in a band when he was younger, says vast majority of those still in it are sectarian scum types.

They did try and march in Dublin and a few troublemakers caused a riot. I sincerely believe that that single incident set back the cause of unification more than any atrocity of the Troubles. The message going north was that Orangemen are not entitled to the same constitutional rights and priviliges inherent to all Irishmen. I don't blame them for not trusting the Republic, or its often narrow minded people.

Eliot Rosewater

lugha wrote: »

A united Ireland will not offer any opportunities that can not be attained without a UI and there is absolutely no evidence that any problems will be solved or that anyone, anywhere would be better off.

Indeed. I've yet to see any valid ways in which being a part of the Republic will make peoples' lives actually happier. I think most people want a united Ireland because of the importance they place in the idea of a nation and a state, but these things do not make their lives happier. In fact, nationalism often makes peoples' lives worse through cultural negativity and violence, etc.

The economic arguments described before could be applied, as another poster said, to the full unification of the two islands. Those arguments could be used to support any kind of merging of any two states. They could also be used to support the idea of the European Union, but, rather ironically, Sinn Fein and most nationalists are against the European Union.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I will say it again, a UI is not just an extra six counties, it is a chance to start again. To build a fairer, more inclusive and better society based on the 1916 proclamation.

I don't see how. Any unification will just entail a constitutional amendment, so there won't be a "year zero" in which this country starts again. Calling it unification is probably misguided: it will probably just amount to the Republic annexing the North.

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

They did try and march in Dublin and a few troublemakers caused a riot. I sincerely believe that that single incident set back the cause of unification more than any atrocity of the Troubles.

It's funny that Republicans demand the Unionists join Ireland while at the same time demonizing them and attacking them and giving them every reason to be petrified of a country with an Irish majority. One of the great ironies of Northern Ireland is that the biggest obstacle to unification is those fighting hardest for it.

owenc

Denerick wrote: »

They did try and march in Dublin and a few troublemakers caused a riot. I sincerely believe that that single incident set back the cause of unification more than any atrocity of the Troubles. The message going north was that Orangemen are not entitled to the same constitutional rights and priviliges inherent to all Irishmen. I don't blame them for not trusting the Republic, or its often narrow minded people.

Orangemen will never be in peace with nationalists, its just not possible!

dvpower

I can't see a United Ireland on the horizon at all. Nationalism is a waning concept and, if in the medium term (say 50 years) we see the UK adopt the Euro and a harmonisation of tax and other systems, then I just can't see the level of public support needed to drive the project.

I predict unification, but it will be EU unification, not Irish unification.

owenc

dvpower wrote: »

I can't see a United Ireland on the horizon at all. Nationalism is a waning concept and, if in the medium term (say 50 years) we see the UK adopt the Euro and a harmonisation of tax and other systems, then I just can't see the level of public support needed to drive the project.

I predict unification, but it will be EU unification, not Irish unification.

The uk will never join the euro either.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

They did try and march in Dublin and a few troublemakers caused a riot. I sincerely believe that that single incident set back the cause of unification more than any atrocity of the Troubles. The message going north was that Orangemen are not entitled to the same constitutional rights and priviliges inherent to all Irishmen. I don't blame them for not trusting the Republic, or its often narrow minded people.

First of all the muppets who rioted cant be seen as nationalists. I think for the most part they were inner city scumbags, who used the occasion as an excuse for violence. Without a doubt there should have been more security. But the question remains, why were they marching in the first place? Is there a "traditional" marching route in Dublin?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Indeed. I've yet to see any valid ways in which being a part of the Republic will make peoples' lives actually happier. I think most people want a united Ireland because of the importance they place in the idea of a nation and a state, but these things do not make their lives happier. In fact, nationalism often makes peoples' lives worse through cultural negativity and violence, etc.

Then why do people vote at all? Why were there people literally crying with happiness when Obama was elected president? Ditto with Nelson Mandela?

I don't see how. Any unification will just entail a constitutional amendment, so there won't be a "year zero" in which this country starts again. Calling it unification is probably misguided: it will probably just amount to the Republic annexing the North.

I disagree 100%. A UI will be one based on compromise. It is a chance for a new begining, for a new political system, for a complete overhaul of the political system a chance to build a fairer, more inclusive society, one in which the following applies.

The Irish Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally

I fully expect compromise to be the key whether that be new national anthems, flags, whatever. It is a chance to attempt to right the wrongs of 90 years ago.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's funny that Republicans demand the Unionists join Ireland while at the same time demonizing them and attacking them and giving them every reason to be petrified of a country with an Irish majority. One of the great ironies of Northern Ireland is that the biggest obstacle to unification is those fighting hardest for it.

First of all I do not think that the OO is representative of a majority of moderate unionists. The OO parades served the simple purpose to antagonize nationalists and to effectively rub it in that protestantism won the day. They have played a huge part in making religion a defining factor in the conflict. They definitely are not the ideal protestant. Ditto with the apprentice boys. I feel that upon unification much of the sting will be taken out of their actions. There triumphalism will no longer be seen as applying to the present day.

Protestant men have always played a prominent role in the history of republicanism. One perfect example is Wolfe Tone, a figure revered by many republicans.


However, it is clear that the influence of religion is rapidly fading. The major stumbling block of "Rome rule" no longer fully applies and will only diminish further.

dvpower

owenc wrote: »

The uk will never join the euro either.

Certainly not in the foreseeable future, but we are likely to see closer integration with NI (for example, in the tourism area). When we have more economic and social integration, less people will feel the need for political unification.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

First of all the muppets who rioted cant be seen as nationalists. I think for the most part they were inner city scumbags, who used the occasion as an excuse for violence. Without a doubt there should have been more security. But the question remains, why were they marching in the first place? Is there a "traditional" marching route in Dublin?


Then why do people vote at all? Why were there people literally crying with happiness when Obama was elected president? Ditto with Nelson Mandela?


I disagree 100%. A UI will be one based on compromise. It is a chance for a new begining, for a new political system, for a complete overhaul of the political system a chance to build a fairer, more inclusive society, one in which the following applies.

I fully expect compromise to be the key whether that be new national anthems, flags, whatever. It is a chance to attempt to right the wrongs of 90 years ago.

First of all I do not think that the OO is representative of a majority of moderate unionists. The OO parades served the simple purpose to antagonize nationalists and to effectively rub it in that protestantism won the day. They have played a huge part in making religion a defining factor in the conflict. They definitely are not the ideal protestant. Ditto with the apprentice boys. I feel that upon unification much of the sting will be taken out of their actions. There triumphalism will no longer be seen as applying to the present day.

Protestant men have always played a prominent role in the history of republicanism. One perfect example is Wolfe Tone, a figure revered by many republicans.


However, it is clear that the influence of religion is rapidly fading. The major stumbling block of "Rome rule" no longer fully applies and will only diminish further.

The OO certaintly don't represent me anyway. Theres no point on you arguing with us over this as we will post our views and you'll go against it onto your nationalists views, it'll never work because we both keep disagreeing its not worthwhile. Wolfe tone was english, theres a difference between a ulster unionist and a southern unionist.;)

owenc

dvpower wrote: »

Certainly not in the foreseeable future, but we are likely to see closer integration with NI (for example, in the tourism area). When we have more economic and social integration, less people will feel the need for political unification.

What do you mean?

Bebs

I've yet to see a good, solid, realistic reason to want a united Ireland in this thread.

What do you mean?

He means that many of the benefits of a united Ireland can be achieved without uniting the country, ie. closer economic co-operation. The attainment of those benefits without uniting the country erodes the case for a united Ireland. Encouraging closer co-operation and integration without any of the nationalistic overtones becomes a sort of diet unification with less stress and more success than a unification would yield.

dvpower

owenc wrote: »

What do you mean?

Increased cooperation like the cross border bodies dilute the aspirations for actual political unification.

We will end up with de facto unification in many areas of life anyway via bilateral arrangements and EU integration.

owenc

dvpower wrote: »

Increased cooperation like the cross border bodies dilute the aspirations for actual political unification.

We will end up with de facto unification in many areas of life anyway via bilateral arrangements and EU integration.

Ok so all the european countries joining up? Naw, i would hate that maybe all the british isles countries join up.

Wolfe Tone

The set up of cross border bodies is a step towards unification I believe.


Unionist thought so too, RE Council of Ireland, Sunningdale.

dvpower

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The set up of cross border bodies is a step towards unification I believe.


Unionist thought so too, RE Council of Ireland, Sunningdale.

Unification Lite.

Wolfe Tone

Basically, leading to full unification. Lots of small steps.

dvpower

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Basically, leading to full unification. Lots of small steps.

Not too sure about that, but I'd say that cross border bodies that were seen to be working well might convince (unionists) to consider different ways of running things; that it is sharing sovereignty, not ceding it.

Wolfe Tone

Yeah, and eventually there will be full unification. That is the road we are on. A long road.

simonj

We give them D4 and all the hippy communes in W.Cork, they get all their tax exiles back and we get the 6 counties, fair swap.

Denerick

Nationalists should follow the example of the SNP in Scotland. Soon the Scottish Parliament will have far greater powers over economic policy. Salmond is a great leader of any nationalist movement, he is more aware than most that independence, if it is ever to come about, will be an incremental movement. The next step on the road to Scottish independence is fiscal autonomy, once that is fully achieved the move to independence will be relatively straightforward.

owenc

simonj wrote: »

We give them D4 and all the hippy communes in W.Cork, they get all their tax exiles back and we get the 6 counties, fair swap.

No thanks.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yeah, and eventually there will be full unification. That is the road we are on. A long road.

That's a pretty big assumption to make. Given the obstacles to unification and the lack of desire amongst most of those concerned it'd be more realistic to believe that it's far from inevitable.

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

That's a pretty big assumption to make. Given the obstacles to unification and the lack of desire amongst most of those concerned it'd be more realistic to believe that it's far from inevitable.

I feel it is inevitable. So do the British actually, in the minutes from secret meetings with SF/IRA the British say that the PIRA and they are on two different roads heading the same direction, at different speeds. Its in those videos I linked earlier. Maybe they are in the IRA tread.

imme

there is of course another way, a third way

http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/

RATM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Inclined to agree with Owen here. The OO won't want to march in Dublin. They see it as a foreign country they want nothing to do with. The politicians describe marching as an expression of their culture but in reality its popular because its anti-catholic.

They won't want to march in a united ireland because it would no longer represent triumphalism in that scenario

My mate was in a band when he was younger, says vast majority of those still in it are sectarian scum types.

If they want nothing to do with the Republic why do they have lodges in Dublin and Wicklow? People tend to forget that the south has a rich Protestant & Orange Order tradition,just because the media never report on them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Codswallop that the Orange Order wouldnt want to march here, they did in 2000 but it got called off due to threats
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/33860

owenc

RATM wrote: »

If they want nothing to do with the Republic why do they have lodges in Dublin and Wicklow? People tend to forget that the south has a rich Protestant & Orange Order tradition,just because the media never report on them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Codswallop that the Orange Order wouldnt want to march here, they did in 2000 but it got called off due to threats
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/33860

They don't want anything to do with it, end of story. Try saying that to them and see what you get.

RATM

owenc wrote: »

They don't want anything to do with it, end of story. Try saying that to them and see what you get.

That doesn't answer the question as to why, if the OO want nothing to do with the Republic, they actually have a number of lodges in the Republic. I not trying to get at you or anything, Im just saying that the OO situation is more complex than saying they want nothing to do with the Republic, especially as some of their members were born as Protestants in the Republic, grew up and were eduacted here and subsequently joined an Orange Lodge here.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I feel it is inevitable. So do the British actually, in the minutes from secret meetings with SF/IRA the British say that the PIRA and they are on two different roads heading the same direction, at different speeds. Its in those videos I linked earlier. Maybe they are in the IRA tread.

The British will do whatever creates the least hassle and unless sectarian identity disappears the least hassle option will always be to leave Northern Ireland independent of the Republic.

Wolfe Tone

Well we have to be careful not to equate protestantism with the OO. The OO are an inherently sectarian and bigoted organisation. Most protestants are none of these things.

Mike 1972

RATM wrote: »

lets assume the population at the time of referendum was 51% Catholic, 49% Protestant.

NEWSFLASH: There are people in Northern Ireland who are niether Protestant nor Roman Catholic :rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

The British will do whatever creates the least hassle and unless sectarian identity disappears the least hassle option will always be to leave Northern Ireland independent of the Republic.

I disagree. They want to leave but will not do so until it is democratically decreed. It is a large drain on their finances. The British have described unionists as "sponges"
Of course Unionists, while considering themselves British have a history of viciously defying Westminster.

Wolfe Tone

Mike 1972 wrote: »

NEWSFLASH: There are people in Northern Ireland who are niether Protestant nor Roman Catholic :rolleyes:

Damn Jedis.


Seriously though, religion is playing less and less of a role these days.

owenc

Mike 1972 wrote: »

NEWSFLASH: There are people in Northern Ireland who are niether Protestant nor Roman Catholic :rolleyes:

Yes and thats estimated at over 10% and growing. I will be one of them in the next census.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well we have to be careful not to equate protestantism with the OO. The OO are an inherently sectarian and bigoted organisation. Most protestants are none of these things.

Yes i have nothing to do with the OO nor has anyone else in my family.

Bebs

If only it were so simple. The British have a vested interest in peace and stability in the North. It may cost a lot to maintain the North now but it would cost an awful lot more if things turned back to the bad old days. Getting rid of the North isn't as simple as turning to the Republic and saying 'here, you take it'.

There's really no good reason to re-unite the two parts of the country and I think people know that by now. Selfish nationalism is the sole motivator for modern day 32 county republicanism.

Mike 1972

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Seriously though, religion is playing less and less of a role these days.

Not to mention an increacing number of immigrants (Protestant, Catholic or Otherwise) most of whom are presumably either happy enough to remain in the UK (otherwise why did they come here ?) or are not particularly bothered either way.