Towards a United Ireland

Richard

WakeUp wrote: »

Obviously, no they wont I dont know what gives you that idea. Why would we bother absorbing that territory into ours if the British were still in a position to exercise power over that territory?? If a UI comes to fruition and an agreement is agreed upon, effectively Britain is transferring sovereignty over to us and thats them out of the game.

Currently Northern Ireland is under British soveriegnty, yet the Republic of Ireland has a say.

In the future, NI may be under Irish sovereignty, with the British govt having a say.

Now I'm not saying that that will (or even should) happen. But it's a possibility.

What is much more likely is that all of Ireland will be in the commonwealth and that the Council of the Isles will remain in existence.

WakeUp

Richard wrote: »

Currently Northern Ireland is under British soveriegnty, yet the Republic of Ireland has a say.

In the future, NI may be under Irish sovereignty, with the British govt having a say.

Now I'm not saying that that will (or even should) happen. But it's a possibility.

What is much more likely is that all of Ireland will be in the commonwealth and that the Council of the Isles will remain in existence.

We have a "say" in Northern Ireland suppose depends on how you define that care of the Anglo-Irish agreement right through to the GFA though Britain did not cede that territory back to us. The are no pre-conditions or obligation contained within the GFA for us to give Britain a say in a unified Ireland if such a thing happens in the future. The British would be involved in negotiations of their interests throughout the informal/formal drafting of an agreement though once that document is signed sealed and delivered thats where their say ends. Negotiating the agreement is their say.

I believe there is a little to no chance of Ireland joining the commonwealth stranger things have happened though I cant see it myself

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

And thats fine by me When your community come to terms with their own hopes and fears perhaps then will be the time to talk details. But dont expect my nation to issue Britain with a right to intervene in our internal affairs in any way, shape, form or text. The irrational fear that your community apparently contains is something that unionists need to sort out before you even consider joining with the south. You shouldnt walk before you crawl.

With an unreasonable an inflexible attitude like that, you shall never achieve Irish reunification as you clearly do not understand, or do not want to understand Unionism. The initial intervention proposed was of a diplomatic nature, and to provide Unionists with a sense of security and protection. If you can't even contemplate such an accommodation within an agreement, even as a transitional measure, you have put a UI outside of your own reach.

Well you see you have been applying a combination of both and quite clearly you didnt and still dont realise it. And I think you missed the point. Viewing issues of foreign policy from a purely subjective reality is doing it wrong it does not work like that in the real world. Im sure you are familiar with the term realpolitik, such is life.

I know that realpolitik shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism, and that you need to get real and pragmatic by accepting that Unionists shall not consider going into a UI without sufficient safeguards in place. The term 'realpolitik' is also used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, underhand or Machiavellian. I would be reluctant to accuse you of any of those, but your tenacity does raise legitimate concerns.

The British government will never have any right to intervene in our affairs. Do you still want to keep doing this?

Even in the event of persecution of the minority? Then say goodbye to any remote notion of a UI.

The art of politics is knowing when you have a hand to play and knowing when your on a spaceship zipping pass Pluto and shouldnt even bother. There wasnt any negotiating process to begin with as a fundamental part of your position, I know it took you forty odd pages to get to it, is both unrealistic and a non-starter. If you are basing your entire strategy around such an unreasonable and unrealistic center stone, you need a new strategy:)

If you ever meet a Unionist who is prepared to walk into a UI without any form of constitutional protection, you'll have met a rare diamond. Keep him on board.

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

With an unreasonable an inflexible attitude like that, you shall never achieve Irish reunification as you clearly do not understand, or do not want to understand Unionism. The initial intervention proposed was of a diplomatic nature, and to provide Unionists with a sense of security and protection. If you can't even contemplate such an accommodation within an agreement, even as a transitional measure, you have put a UI outside of your own reach.

I can contemplate many things and indeed I did ponder upon your request for all of one second. You believe a right to intervention is reasonable, and I believe its unreasonable to assume a nation would give another nation a right to intervene in their affairs in any way shape or form. You have all these grand and lovely ideas about restructuring the entire island, tearing up constitutions, handing the British a right to intervention tell me again how many times have you visited the republic? you and your community, and you have admitted to as much dont trust us and you certainly dont understand us. And if understanding unionism invloves giving into a request like the one you are insisting then as far as Im concerned there is nothing to understand as I already understand

I know that realpolitik shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism, and that you need to get real and pragmatic by accepting that Unionists shall not consider going into a UI without sufficient safeguards in place. The term 'realpolitik' is also used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, underhand or Machiavellian. I would be reluctant to accuse you of any of those, but your tenacity does raise legitimate concerns.

Im afraid its yourself Berite that needs to get real not me You need to accept that Ireland will not give another nation a right to intervention, not now not ever, to appease the irrational & illogical fears of unionism.

Even in the event of persecution of the minority? Then say goodbye to any remote notion of a UI.

If you ever meet a Unionist who is prepared to walk into a UI without any form of constitutional protection, you'll have met a rare diamond. Keep him on board.

If you ever meet an Irish foreign diplomat stupid and naive enough to give into this particular demand of yours - British right to intervention - youll have met a rare diamond too:)

Richard

WakeUp wrote: »

If you ever meet an Irish foreign diplomat stupid and naive enough to give into this particular demand of yours - British right to intervention - youll have met a rare diamond too:)

You speak as if nationalists are holding all the cards. I'm not saying that the British govt would have a say, but it would depend on the negotiations.

Remember that the Irish govt have a say even though there is not a nationalist majority in NI. The unionists who said "never" on this one are the equivalent of the diplomat you mention.

WakeUp

Richard wrote: »

You speak as if nationalists are holding all the cards. I'm not saying that the British govt would have a say, but it would depend on the negotiations.

Remember that the Irish govt have a say even though there is not a nationalist majority in NI. The unionists who said "never" on this one are the equivalent of the diplomat you mention.

Thanks to the skill of the people who negotiated the Anglo-Irish and Good Friday agreements on our behalf the south has a say in the state that is Northern Ireland as agreed to by the British. It isnt a case of us holding all the cards, once the island is unified Northern Ireland would cease to exist you need to ask yourself why would we, if that is to happen, give another nation a right, a say or ability to exercise power over any part of our sovereign territory?? When a nation cedes territory back to another nation they transfer sovereignty of that territory back aswell. The British will have a say in any future reunification agreement concerning their interests. Though once an agreement is in place between both governments and they transfer sovereignty back to us they no longer have a say or ability to exercise power.

JustinDee

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Your thoughts on Irish unity, ladies and not so lady-like persons, please.

The least of this island's problems and is so far down the list of priorities that I'm not even going to finish this senten . . .

Richard

WakeUp wrote: »

Thanks to the skill of the people who negotiated the Anglo-Irish and Good Friday agreements on our behalf the south has a say in the state that is Northern Ireland as agreed to by the British. It isnt a case of us holding all the cards, once the island is unified Northern Ireland would cease to exist you need to ask yourself why would we, if that is to happen, give another nation a right, a say or ability to exercise power over any part of our sovereign territory?? When a nation cedes territory back to another nation they transfer sovereignty of that territory back aswell. The British will have a say in any future reunification agreement concerning their interests. Though once an agreement is in place between both governments and they transfer sovereignty back to us they no longer have a say or ability to exercise power.

You still don't get it...

WakeUp

Richard wrote: »

You still don't get it...

explain to me what I dont get...

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

I can contemplate many things and indeed I did ponder upon your request for all of one second. You believe a right to intervention is reasonable, and I believe its unreasonable to assume a nation would give another nation a right to intervene in their affairs in any way shape or form. You have all these grand and lovely ideas about restructuring the entire island, tearing up constitutions, handing the British a right to intervention tell me again how many times have you visited the republic? you and your community, and you have admitted to as much dont trust us and you certainly dont understand us. And if understanding unionism invloves giving into a request like the one you are insisting then as far as Im concerned there is nothing to understand as I already understand

You have an issue with the term "diplomatic intervention" as you are interpreting it as "diplomatic interference". You also have your own issues with "trust" in that you think that if a reunification agreement containing an article providing for such measures were to receive support via referendum, that this would dilute and threaten Ireland's sovereignty. Your concerns are based upon a fallacious notion born out of your own suspicion; that the British want to regain a foothold in the 26, and perhaps even with a view to recolonisation, which is ludicrous.

Im afraid its yourself Berite that needs to get real not me You need to accept that Ireland will not give another nation a right to intervention, not now not ever, to appease the irrational & illogical fears of unionism.

I'm telling that if you ever, and I don't mean in your lifetime, I mean ever want to see the realisation of a UI, you need to accept the fact that Unionists shall never agree to reunification without sufficient guarantees, assurances and safeguards against potential persecution being written into a reunification agreement.

If you ever meet an Irish foreign diplomat stupid and naive enough to give into this particular demand of yours - British right to intervention - youll have met a rare diamond too:)

You are viewing my suggestion of intervention as having sinister connotations, thus manifesting your own insecurities.

WakeUp wrote: »

Thanks to the skill of the people who negotiated the Anglo-Irish and Good Friday agreements on our behalf the south has a say in the state that is Northern Ireland as agreed to by the British. It isnt a case of us holding all the cards, once the island is unified Northern Ireland would cease to exist you need to ask yourself why would we, if that is to happen, give another nation a right, a say or ability to exercise power over any part of our sovereign territory?? When a nation cedes territory back to another nation they transfer sovereignty of that territory back aswell. The British will have a say in any future reunification agreement concerning their interests. Though once an agreement is in place between both governments and they transfer sovereignty back to us they no longer have a say or ability to exercise power.

In theory, you are correct, but it's not that simple. The GFA was bought about by the British and Irish gvts co-operating, and the north-south bodies created by the GFA have in effect given the Republic some say in NI's affairs.

The GFA was a joint British-Irish project and so shall eventual Irish reunification. Strand 3 of the GFA pertaining to British-Irish relations must therefore be used a platform on which to build trust, and the only way Unionists are going to vote in favour of reunification is if they feel they can depend upon the British government to afford them some protection.

You talk about me not having grasped your message in forty pages. I am telling you that you are still not grasping my message in 47 pages and 700 posts, and I must therefore re-ask the simple question which I posed in the opening post of this thread:

How would you convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that finally putting an end to partition is safe and in their best interests?

WakeUp

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You have an issue with the term "diplomatic intervention" as you are interpreting it as "diplomatic interference".

Are you serious:D definitons of the word intervention, a) the act or fact of intervening, b) interpositon or interference of one state in the affairs of another. I care not one bit what word you insert before the word intervention my issue is with the word that comes after, intervention.

You also have your own issues with "trust" in that you think that if a reunification agreement containing an article providing for such measures were to receive support via referendum, that this would dilute and threaten Ireland's sovereignty. Your concerns are based upon a fallacious notion born out of your own suspicion; that the British want to regain a foothold in the 26, and perhaps even with a view to recolonisation, which is ludicrous.

A bit rich now dont you think Your reasoning for putting forward your unreasonable request is based on the premise of fear and retribution by the evil southerners and our fork fielding folk. I have no such trust issues nor irrational fears like that, of anything. But I do live in the real world. Sovereignty by its core definition is supreme authority over a territory. So yes Irelands sovereignty would be diluted if the British had any administrative power over a united Ireland.

I'm telling that if you ever, and I don't mean in your lifetime, I mean ever want to see the realisation of a UI, you need to accept the fact that Unionists shall never agree to reunification without sufficient guarantees, assurances and safeguards against potential persecution being written into a reunification agreement.

And Im telling you that Ireland, not now not ever, will agree to a provision like the one you have suggested.

You are viewing my suggestion of intervention as having sinister connotations, thus manifesting your own insecurities.

Im viewing your suggestion as being unrealistic and a non-starter to begin with. I have no such insecurities, I am comfortable with who I am and my nations place among this planet.

In theory, you are correct, but it's not that simple. The GFA was bought about by the British and Irish gvts co-operating, and the north-south bodies created by the GFA have in effect given the Republic some say in NI's affairs.

The GFA was a joint British-Irish project and so shall eventual Irish reunification. Strand 3 of the GFA pertaining to British-Irish relations must therefore be used a platform on which to build trust, and the only way Unionists are going to vote in favour of reunification is if they feel they can depend upon the British government to afford them some protection.

The GFA was a project between the two governments. Eventual Irish reunification if it happens will be a negotitian of interests between the two governments. If the British sign off on an agreement transferring sovereignty over to us, thats them out.

You talk about me not having grasped your message in forty pages. I am telling you that you are still not grasping my message in 47 pages and 700 posts, and I must therefore re-ask the simple question which I posed in the opening post of this thread:

You are getting yourself in a knot here. What I said, you can read back if you like, was that it took you forty odd pages to get to the fundamental part of your position. I said nothing about you grasping my message in said forty odd pages dont know where you got that from

How would you convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that finally putting an end to partition is safe and in their best interests?

I dont believe this current generation of unionists are ready for the emotional aspects and realism involved in the detail required for an actual agreement to take place. You arent ready for it. I would focus on the next generation and the generation after that who will hopefully grow up without the irrational fears that the current generation who are still healing in fairness possess. Maybe the next generations will be more confident and sure of themselves and perhaps then we can talk details, realistic details that are achieveable and workable. I would genuinely like to see a united Ireland someday for the Irish people up North who want it and because I want your stuff absorbing territory is not something to be sniffed at if its in our interests as opportunity abounds but its all about timing as the wheels are in motion. So for now talking and communication is the way forward like I already said though I dont believe you are ready to talk specific workable details yet.

Bertie Woot

WakeUp wrote: »

Are you serious:D definitons of the word intervention, a) the act or fact of intervening, b) interpositon or interference of one state in the affairs of another. I care not one bit what word you insert before the word intervention my issue is with the word that comes after, intervention.

If you can't handle a word which effectively translates to 'protection for the British ethnic minority in a UI' thus enabling them to consent to a UI, you are not going to have a UI.

A bit rich now dont you think Your reasoning for putting forward your unreasonable request is based on the premise of fear and retribution by the evil southerners and our fork fielding folk. I have no such trust issues nor irrational fears like that, of anything. But I do live in the real world. Sovereignty by its core definition is supreme authority over a territory. So yes Irelands sovereignty would be diluted if the British had any administrative power over a united Ireland.

And Im telling you that Ireland, not now not ever, will agree to a provision like the one you have suggested.

I'm well aware of the definition of "sovereignty", and I haven't requested for the British gvt to be given "administrative power" in a UI. I have attempted to communicate the depth of distrust towards Irish Republicanism and the Dublin gvt that has traditionally lay at the core of Unionism, and made it clear that Unionists shall never enter a UI without some form of protection from the British gvt. Unionist concerns are not irrational or unjustified as you suggest, as there is a very real prospect of retaliatory discrimination for what happened to Nationalists in NI, and if we look at the way the Protestant population in the south was greatly reduced post partition, Unionists fears and concerns are grounded in reality.

Im viewing your suggestion as being unrealistic and a non-starter to begin with. I have no such insecurities, I am comfortable with who I am and my nations place among this planet.

You need a reality check and an enrolment on the program. By viewing my suggestion of a 'diplomatic intervention' by the British SOS for foreign affairs as unacceptable in the case of discrimination against the Unionist minority, you are essentially communicating to Unionism that this is a very real probability.

The GFA was a project between the two governments. Eventual Irish reunification if it happens will be a negotitian of interests between the two governments. If the British sign off on an agreement transferring sovereignty over to us, thats them out.

It's not going to be as simple as that, as the political parties in NI shall also have considerable input on procedure via their interests thus muddying the waters. Realistically, a federal Ireland, with Britain continuing to sustain involvement in the 6 counties in the transitional phase to full reunification is realistic, but until the Irish delegation accept an agreement with unequivocal guarantees and safeguards to protect the Unionist minority, and a provision for British governmental back-up in the form of urgent diplomatic relations between Dublin and London, there won't be an agreement that Unionists can ratify.

I understand that you think the British shall just sign Unionists over, severe all diplomatic ties, and that shall be the end of it. It won't happen like that, and if there is any proposal that it shall happen like that, Unionists shall oppose it, and there shall be no reunification agreement that Unionism can back. Unionism shall require a lengthy transitional settling in phase, and that shall involve both governments working together.

I dont believe this current generation of unionists are ready for the emotional aspects and realism involved in the detail required for an actual agreement to take place. You arent ready for it. I would focus on the next generation and the generation after that who will hopefully grow up without the irrational fears that the current generation who are still healing in fairness possess. Maybe the next generations will be more confident and sure of themselves and perhaps then we can talk details, realistic details that are achieveable and workable. I would genuinely like to see a united Ireland someday for the Irish people up North who want it and because I want your stuff absorbing territory is not something to be sniffed at if its in our interests as opportunity abounds but its all about timing as the wheels are in motion. So for now talking and communication is the way forward like I already said though I dont believe you are ready to talk specific workable details yet.

There are no irrational fears. There are fears born of bitter historical experience and expectations for the future. The British in Ireland have been bombarded, butchered and bombed. For 30 years they had their protestations on Republican violence completely ignored by the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein, and have paid for their right to reside on this island in their own blood. They are not about to sacrifice what they regard as their homeland for some high risk venture into a united Ireland.

They want details. Realistic details, and on specifics pertaining to the adequate protection of their civil and religious liberties, their ethnic and cultural identity, and their right to live on this island free from violence, intimidation, discrimination and persecution. Unless the British and Irish delegations can deliver an agreement which satisfies Unionist's needs, reunification shall remain an unattainable pipe dream of Republican and Nationalist romantics.

PS. I'm all for Socialism, but I also believe in the concept of some private property, and "my stuff" is mine.

Richard

WakeUp wrote: »

explain to me what I dont get...

The GFA guarenteed certain things for unionists, e.g.
*The principle of consent and the consequential retention if NI's place in the UK
*The Stormont assembly
*Council of the isles
*Removal of articles 2/3

The GFA guarenteed certain things for nationalists, e.g.
*the mechanism for a United Ireland
*the removal of the "unionist veto"
*reform of police
*enforced power sharing

In any United Ireland there will be a similar negotiated settlement which will guarentee various things for both nationalists and unionists, one of which may a limited role for the British government.

This isn't 1922 when the views of nationalists in NI weren't taken into account. A future settlement will be like the GFA and the views of all will matter.

marienbad

Richard wrote: »

The GFA guarenteed certain things for unionists, e.g.
*The principle of consent and the consequential retention if NI's place in the UK
*The Stormont assembly
*Council of the isles
*Removal of articles 2/3

The GFA guarenteed certain things for nationalists, e.g.
*the mechanism for a United Ireland
*the removal of the "unionist veto"
*reform of police
*enforced power sharing

In any United Ireland there will be a similar negotiated settlement which will guarentee various things for both nationalists and unionists, one of which may a limited role for the British government.

This isn't 1922 when the views of nationalists in NI weren't taken into account. A future settlement will be like the GFA and the views of all will matter.

Not a chance . You might get a token UN oversight role for a transition period , but that is about all .

Richard

marienbad wrote: »

Not a chance . You might get a token UN oversight role for a transition period , but that is about all .

That is the equivalent of the "not an inch" mentality of some unionists in the past.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The next generation will take over. People who identify as being Northern Irish, we see it already, for instance a high profile young Catholic like Rory Mcllroy who is happy with the state of his country.

Let's be honest here the South doesn't want the North just like the North doesn't want the South. We'll persevere as we are for another lifetime or two.

marienbad

Richard wrote: »

That is the equivalent of the "not an inch" mentality of some unionists in the past.

You can say that of anything you don't agree with. But it this particularly case it has no relevance whatsoever, the principle of consent has seen to that.

As long as Unionists have any fears there will be no consent . And if it takes another couple of generations for those fears to abate then so be it.

Even as part of the price of unification the electorate in the Republic will not accept any UK influence in our affairs . Why on earth would we ? Just take Mao's view on history and wait a little longer instead .

Right now the electorate in the south would veto any such move never mind the Unionists. When it happens, if it happens , it will be economics that brings about the tipping point. It always is.

Richard

marienbad wrote: »

You can say that of anything you don't agree with. But it this particularly case it has no relevance whatsoever, the principle of consent has seen to that.

As long as Unionists have any fears there will be no consent . And if it takes another couple of generations for those fears to abate then so be it.

Even as part of the price of unification the electorate in the Republic will not accept any UK influence in our affairs . Why on earth would we ? Just take Mao's view on history and wait a little longer instead .

Right now the electorate in the south would veto any such move never mind the Unionists. When it happens, if it happens , it will be economics that brings about the tipping point. It always is.

Economics will be a bug factor, yes, but neither the British or Iish governments will endorse a United Ireland where any significant part of the opinion spectrum is left out.

To do so would cause an upsurge in terrorism.

marienbad

Richard wrote: »

Economics will be a bug factor, yes, but neither the British or Iish governments will endorse a United Ireland where any significant part of the opinion spectrum is left out.

To do so would cause an upsurge in terrorism.

No one is saying otherwise. But that is a long way from giving the UK a say in any future republic. Never happen.

Bertie Woot

marienbad wrote: »

No one is saying otherwise. But that is a long way from giving the UK a say in any future republic. Never happen.

No-one really wants to give the UK a say in the future Republic. I want full sovereignty and independence. But Unionists shall require something written into a reunification agreement which shall assure them that they are fully protected against potential discrimination and persecution, and my suggestion that British diplomatic intervention should form part of that agreement has been branded unreasonable and unrealistic.

So how are you going to convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that finally putting an end to partition and entering into a UI is safe and in their best interests?

marienbad

Bertie Woot wrote: »

No-one really wants to give the UK a say in the future Republic. I want full sovereignty and independence. But Unionists shall require something written into a reunification agreement which shall assure them that they are fully protected against potential discrimination and persecution, and my suggestion that British diplomatic intervention should form part of that agreement has been branded unreasonable and unrealistic.

So how are you going to convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that finally putting an end to partition and entering into a UI is safe and in their best interests?

All those protections are already guaranteed under the current constitution and further guaranteed by EU law.

What you are proposing is really just bizarre, you have spent about 400 posts telling us how British interventions basically f*&ked up the country and now you are proposing to codify that intervention as part of a solution !

Richard

Bertie Woot wrote:

So how are you going to convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that finally putting an end to partition and entering into a UI is safe and in their best interests?

marienbad wrote: »

All those protections are already guaranteed under the current constitution and further guaranteed by EU law.

You haven't answered Bertie's question. How do you convince Unionists? And before you dismiss them, a peaceful UI is not possible without Unionist concerns being addressed.

Bertie Woot

marienbad wrote: »

All those protections are already guaranteed under the current constitution and further guaranteed by EU law.

What you are proposing is really just bizarre, you have spent about 400 posts telling us how British interventions basically f*&ked up the country and now you are proposing to codify that intervention as part of a solution !

Like Wakeup, you need to wake up and get familiar with Ulster Unionism. I mean, properly familiar. When you do, you shall have difficulty denouncing my suggestions as 'bizarre'. And you have evaded my question with an OTT melodramatic response.

Ulster Unionism shall not contemplate agreeing to a UI without proper protections. My suggestion to British diplomatic intervention has been ruled out of hand.

For the second time: how are you going to convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that finally putting an end to partition and entering into a UI is safe and in their best interests?

A proper, logical and coherent answer would be appreciated.

Cheers.

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Like Wakeup, you need to wake up and get familiar with Ulster Unionism. I mean, properly familiar. When you do, you shall have difficulty denouncing my suggestions as 'bizarre'. And you have evaded my question with an OTT melodramatic response.

Ulster Unionism shall not contemplate agreeing to a UI without proper protections. My suggestion to British diplomatic intervention has been ruled out of hand.

For the second time: how are you going to convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that finally putting an end to partition and entering into a UI is safe and in their best interests?

A proper, logical and coherent answer would be appreciated.

Cheers.

The simple is, they cant

marienbad

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Like Wakeup, you need to wake up and get familiar with Ulster Unionism. I mean, properly familiar. When you do, you shall have difficulty denouncing my suggestions as 'bizarre'. And you have evaded my question with an OTT melodramatic response.

Ulster Unionism shall not contemplate agreeing to a UI without proper protections. My suggestion to British diplomatic intervention has been ruled out of hand.

For the second time: how are you going to convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that finally putting an end to partition and entering into a UI is safe and in their best interests?

A proper, logical and coherent answer would be appreciated.

Cheers.

Time and economics and greater EU integration .

Bertie Woot

marienbad wrote: »

Time and economics and greater EU integration .

This breathtakingly short and evasive reply translates to: I don't know.

Because you don't.

Richard

marienbad wrote: »

Time and economics and greater EU integration .

If it was all down to economics then no-one would care about flags and emblems.

I think you'll find that they do.

marienbad

Bertie Woot wrote: »

This breathtakingly short and evasive reply translates to: I don't know.

Because you don't.

Brevity doesn't equal evasive Bertie, you are the master of the longwinded post yet you have little understanding of the priorities of people down south.

marienbad

Richard wrote: »

If it was all down to economics then no-one would care about flags and emblems.

I think you'll find that they do.

Where did I say it was ALL down to economics ?

Bertie Woot

marienbad wrote: »

Brevity doesn't equal evasive Bertie, you are the master of the longwinded post yet you have little understanding of the priorities of people down south.

You haven't answered my very simple question because you haven't got a clue where to even begin. That's how much understanding you have of the priorities of the majority of the people up north.