Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, I have always been clear on which side I hold responsible. Stating that I have a bias is a statement of the obvious imo. I am not neutral, are you?

It's patently obvious he's not.

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

Try not to put words in people's mouths and adopt positions for them.

I'm not. I'm reiterating positions that I've read over and over and over and over again from republicans on these forums.

But if you're offended at the characterisation, please feel free to explain whether you feel that the threat of violence from unionists at the start of the 20th century was justified, or that the fact of violence from nationalists was not.

Welcome to planet earth where moral absolutes are few and far between. Enjoy your stay.

Moral relativism is one thing. The blatant admission that the very same behaviour is acceptable from people you agree with while contemptible from those you oppose, well, that's a whole 'nother thing.

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

It's patently obvious he's not.

If by "not neutral" you mean "disagrees with you" - and I've seen no evidence that you have any other benchmark for neutrality - then no, I guess I don't measure up to that standard of neutrality.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

unionists might have started a war over home rule

Yes, yes 'might have'. The acquiring of 25,00 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition was just a bluff and if all Island home rule was granted (yes, granted by those denying it from us) they would have laughed and said 'okay lads, you got us, we were just bluffing, lol'. Your anti-Republican bias precedes you.

while commemorating the republicans who did start a war

Yes, yes Republicans were to blame for starting the war because there was no British threat of terrorism underpinning their presence here.

Do you ever consider your own bias*?





*That's what's known as a rhetorical question.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

Yes, yes 'might have'. The acquiring of 25,00 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition was just a bluff and if all Island home rule was granted they would have laughed and said 'okay lads, you got us, we were just bluffing, lol'.

Yeah, what kind of carry on was that? Could they not just have accepted being part of a state that they did not want to be in? You wouldn't get Irish nationalists carrying on ...... oh wait! :D:D

Happyman42

Karl Stein wrote: »

I've consistently said that even if Jean McConville was an informer she shouldn't have been killed.

Nobody should have been killed. or needed to be killed, therein is the tragedy. Full stop.
The petty glory that some take when you try to understand why people died and the way they use particular deaths is just a symptom of what caused the deaths in the first place. The failure to recognise and fix an out of control suprematist statelet.
Thankfully all sides came to their senses, I include the IRA in that and the 'statlet' is being fixed.
How well we want to fix it is the next hurdle, but it won't get fixed by selectively punishing from your original bias and prejudice. Punish all or punish none.
That doesn't help this family, but the hard fact is that they are being used, Take one look at the list of nearly 500 hundred people who died that year and honestly tell me that this death is somehow exceptional in that sad and tragic litany. If Gerry Adams name wasn't connected then it would be forgotten like all the others. Who is looking for, or even talking about the killers of Jill Mansfield or Margaret Grant or Anne Owens or Liz McAuley?

The only thing that will bring fair and equal closure is a full and honest truth and reconciliation process. This thread should be used as evidence in that quest.

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

Yes, yes 'might have'. The acquiring of 25,00 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition was just a bluff and if all Island home rule was granted (yes, granted by those denying it from us) they would have laughed and said 'okay lads, you got us, we were just bluffing, lol'. Your anti-Republican bias precedes you.



Yes, yes Republicans were to blame for starting the war because there was no British threat of terrorism underpinning their presence here.

It's almost comical how you've just reiterated my point in a vain attempt to refute it.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's almost comical how you've just reiterated my point in a vain attempt to refute it.

What point? It's not clear what your point is. Why did you bother quoting what I wrote?

Happyman42

Karl Stein wrote: »

What point? It's not clear what your point is.

It's philosophical Karl...you wouldn't understand! Philosophies are fashionable and you can discard one in favour of another whenever you wish, just like sweets, my favourite sweet du jour is........fill in the blank, don't write on both sides of the paper at once!

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

The failure to recognise and fix an out of control suprematist statelet.

That's the problem here though. The complete lack of taking responsibility for causing a conflict by trying to preserve privilege and power by use, and threat, of terrorism.

That doesn't help this family, but the hard fact is that they are being used, Take one look at the list of nearly 500 hundred people who died that year and honestly tell me that this death is somehow exceptional in that sad and tragic litany.

Oh I'm quite aware that the vast majority of people who wave Jean McC's corpse don't really care about what happened to her and only care about using it to demonise Republicans.

If Gerry Adams name wasn't connected then it would be forgotten like all the others. Who is looking for, or even talking about the killers of Jill Mansfield or Margaret Grant or Anne Owens or Liz McAuley?

I try to avoid bringing up the names of those killed by Union/loyalists and the British because I don't want to lower myself to their corpse waving level but I take your point. All they need to do is google 'children killed by British Army Northern Ireland' and select a corpse to wave.

The only thing that will bring fair and equal closure is a full and honest truth and reconciliation process.

It's not going to happen. There are far too many people who've had medals pinned on them by Mrs Windsor and who're receiving pensions from the British tax-payer for them to admit their deeds.

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's philosophical Karl...you wouldn't understand!

oscarBravo is trying his best to present himself as some sort of supernatural moral arbiter when it's quite obvious he's not.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You wouldn't get Irish nationalists carrying on ...... oh wait! :D:D

The major difference being that Irish Nationalists weren't protesting for a UI when they were beaten and murdered for it (not that there would have been anything wrong with seeking a UI). Irish Nationalists sought equality within the north - they quickly learned that it was not going to be 'granted' *spit* without a fight. As most of recent history shows, Nationalists and Republicans didn't go looking for a fight - the fight came looking for them.

Learn.
Your.
History.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

The major difference being that Irish Nationalists weren't protesting for a UI when they were beaten and murdered for it (not that there would have been anything wrong with seeking a UI). Irish Nationalists sought equality within the north - they quickly learned that it was not going to be 'granted' *spit* without a fight. As most of recent history shows, Nationalists and Republicans didn't go looking for a fight - the fight came looking for them.

Learn.
Your.
History.

Nonsense. Irish nationalists have a long tradition of using force to achieve their political ends. The problems in NI added an extra impetus but they were always as ready to use force as the unionists were at the foundation of the state.

The idea that Irish nationalists would have by now accepted partition were it not for the bad behaviour on the British side is what I said at the top, nonsense.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not. I'm reiterating positions that I've read over and over and over and over again from republicans on these forums.

Because all Republicans or people who identify with them have a hive mind. I've called you out on this before. There is no uniform hive mind Republicanism that you can lazily stigmatise despite your attempts.

if you're offended at the characterisation,

Can you stop putting words in my mouth? I don't get offended easily and especially so for some random person on the internet.

please feel free to explain whether you feel that the threat of violence from unionists at the start of the 20th century was justified, or that the fact of violence from nationalists was not.

The violence of Unionists was an attempt to preserve power and privilege and the other was an attempt to challenge it. Again, welcome to planet Earth, enjoy your stay.

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
Some of the posts on this thread have gotten too personal. Now I enjoy a spirited discussion, but from now on please focus on the thread topic and not each other. Per NI charter:

Black Swan wrote: »

Certain standards of discussion and debate are expected, and will be enforced...

No personal abuse, or getting too personal, (i.e., challenge the post, not the poster).

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Irish nationalists have a long tradition of using force to achieve their political ends.

Reactionary force. If the British and Union/loyalists had not used terrorism to suppress the democratic aspirations of Reps/Nats then there'd have been no need.

The idea that Irish nationalists would have by now accepted partition were it not for the bad behaviour on the British side is what I said at the top, nonsense.

A failed attempt at Moral equivocation. What you're saying is 'Nationalists were always going to be equally as violent as Union/loyalists'. The civil rights movement was interested in gaining equality not seeking a UI by force, ask John Hume and Ivan Cooper.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

Reactionary force. If the British and Union/loyalists had not used terrorism to suppress the democratic aspirations of Reps/Nats then there'd have been no need.

Ah, so when Pearse and the lads (who of course were not terrorists) used violence to put an end to their presence in a state to which they felt no allegiance, this was perfectbly justifiable but when Carson and his gang threatened violence to prevent being part of a state to which they would feel no allegiance, then this was terrorism?

Karl Stein wrote: »

A failed attempt at Moral equivocation. What you're saying is 'Nationalists were always going to be equally as violent as Union/loyalists'. The civil rights movement was interested in gaining equality not seeking a UI by force, ask John Hume and Ivan Cooper.

I am saying that republicans were as willing as loyalists to use violence to attain/secure their political aspirations.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, I have always been clear on which side I hold responsible. Stating that I have a bias is a statement of the obvious imo. I am not neutral, are you?

I'm completely neutral. I'm opposed to the sick ideology/sectarianism that attempts to dissemble about the murder of someone for their political perspective. I really could care less for the union or for a 32 county republic. It's six of one, and half a dozen of the other, and certainly not worth killing/dying for - let alone becoming an apologist for murderers.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

oscarBravo is trying his best to present himself as some sort of supernatural moral arbiter when it's quite obvious he's not.

No - he's simply pointing out the glaring contradiction at the heart of your biased opinion. But you knew that already.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm completely neutral. I'm opposed to the sick ideology/sectarianism that attempts to dissemble about the murder of someone for their political perspective. I really could care less for the union or for a 32 county republic. It's six of one, and half a dozen of the other, and certainly not worth killing/dying for - let alone becoming an apologist for murderers.

Which is not a neutral position, and it's eternally funny that your 'neutrality' always has you on the opposite side to SF, who have not advocated or used violence (often in the face of violence) since the signing of the GFA.

I think the best bet is to re-examine your view and a dictionary.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is not a neutral position

I think you'll find it is.

ChicagoJoe

Godge wrote: »

Where are you getting that rubbish from that I ignore this, that and the other?

From reading your posts on the thread.

There has never been a referendum on Irish unity in living memory so there are no previous voting patterns to analyse. The opinion polls show differing outcomes with support for a united Ireland tomorrow ranging from about 3-4% up to about 20%, depending on the nature of the poll.

Little TV or newspaper polls from the BBC or pro unionist papers are certainly no indicator of how people may vote in an official border poll compared to election results for the last 90 years. If unionists or the British had the slightest belief in their little polls, they would want a border poll tomorrow.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You are making the familiar mistake of assuming that all nationalists would actual opt for a united Ireland given the choice. If and when it comes to a vote, I expect the majority will ask themselves if they would be better off in a united Ireland or remaining within the UK.

Those hoping to forge a new 32 county state would of course hope that Northern nationalists didn’t to any thinking and simply followed them blindly (and brainlessly!).

This might happen, but I doubt it.

Elections in the six counties are nationalist v unionist contests, trying to pretend otherwise is only convoluted time wasting. Like above, if unionists or the British had the slightest belief in their little polls, they would want a border poll tomorrow (even though unionists would win but probably by only 4/5%). The fact that both of them resisted Sinn Fein's calls for a border poll says it all

ChicagoJoe

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is not a neutral position, and it's eternally funny that your 'neutrality' always has you on the opposite side to SF, who have not advocated or used violence (often in the face of violence) since the signing of the GFA.

I think the best bet is to re-examine your view and a dictionary.

Excellent !!!!!

twowheelsgood

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Elections in the six counties are nationalist v unionist contests, trying to pretend otherwise is only convoluted time wasting.

Yes, voting is almost totally tribal, I have never suggested otherwise. But it simply does not follow that nationalists will necessarily all vote for a united Ireland if there was an option in the immediate future. It would be like arguing that Ireland is still strongly a catholic country on the basis that most people still nominally identify themselves as such on the census.

Any of them who have even the tiniest grasp of economic realities will clearly see that a vote for a united Ireland for people in NI is a vote for a substantially diminished standard of living. And thus it will remain for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately for you, Irish nationalists are not idiots.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Like above, if unionists or the British had the slightest belief in their little polls, they would want a border poll tomorrow (even though unionists would win but probably by only 4/5%). The fact that both of them resisted Sinn Fein's calls for a border poll says it all

A border poll will undoubtedly be defeated and thus will achieve nothing more than to antagonise unionists. Not calling one is a no-brainer.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Yes, voting is almost totally tribal, I have never suggested otherwise. But it simply does not follow that nationalists will necessarily all vote for a united Ireland if there was an option in the immediate future. It would be like arguing that Ireland is still strongly a catholic country on the basis that most people still nominally identify themselves as such on the census.

Any of them who have even the tiniest grasp of economic realities will clearly see that a vote for a united Ireland for people in NI is a vote for a substantially diminished standard of living. And thus it will remain for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately for you, Irish nationalists are not idiots.
A border poll will undoubtedly be defeated and thus will achieve nothing more than to antagonise unionists. Not calling one is a no-brainer.

What are you basing your figures on? You seem very certain on them, and I don't recall seeing any breakdowns on how it might work financially.
Are you just working on a hunch?

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

What are you basing your figures on? You seem very certain on them, and I don't recall seeing any breakdowns on how it might work financially.
Are you just working on a hunch?

Seriously? Are you unaware that the South still had a massive budget deficit, not to mention crippling debt obligations?

Are you unaware that the British Exchequer makes a net contribution to NI to the tunes of billions?

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Seriously? Are you unaware that the South still had a massive budget deficit, not to mention crippling debt obligations?

Are you unaware that the British Exchequer makes a net contribution to NI to the tunes of billions?

That's not what I asked you for. What are you basing your assessment of how it will work out financially on? Who has done the breakdown?

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's not what I asked you for. What are you basing your assessment of how it will work out financially on? Who has done the breakdown?

Er, I am basing it on our massive debt & deficit and the equally big hole in the finances of NI???

Do you think these problems will all disappear in a UI?

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Er, I am basing it on our massive debt & deficit and the equally big hole in the finances of NI???

Do you think these problems will all disappear in a UI?

So you are just guessing. You were so positive I thought you where working from ACTUAL figures.
I am well aware of our debt.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you are just guessing. You were so positive I thought you where working from ACTUAL figures.
I am well aware of our debt.

So you know about our debt? Good. So now you are positive too!

(Do you also know about the deficits both states on the island run?)

Godge

alastair wrote: »

The war crime (had it been applicable, which it wasn't) would still have been one of murder of course.

It is a war crime to torture and kill civilian informers who may have been acting under duress.

Happyman42 wrote: »

testimony will be made about motive, if he testifies that he was acting on orders because she was an informer and if I believe the testimony (and I don't trust Hughes btw) then you know my opinion on the death of an informer.
It is my opinion, already clearly stated. Think of it how you want.


.

We have been there moved on, we have pointed out that your definition leads to the IRA being guilty of a war crime.

Godge wrote: »

All right then, if it was a war and she was a civilian informer (unless you are saying she held a rank in the British army?) then the IRA are guilty of war crimes (equivalent to murder) under the Geneva Convention.

If it was not a war, then the IRA are guilty of torture and murder, simple enough.

Either way, the killing of Jean McConville cannot be justified and must be condemned by anyone with any credibility.

As I have already pointed out, unless you are prepared to excuse Bloody Sunday, all UVF and RUC killings, you must actually condemn this.

And stop pretending that you don't justify murder.

So answer the question please, was it a war crime or murder?

Don't try and avoid it again.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So you know about our debt? Good. So now you are positive too!

(Do you also know about the deficits both states on the island run?)

Yes I do know, I also know what it costs Britain and what the cyclical violence costs them which will be a huge factor in their thinking. And I have always been aware of the economic possibilities for a united island because it makes common sense. I like many expect a period of ajustment of course, how long that will be is what I will leave to experts an I won't pontificate on the basis of a hunch.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

.




We have been there moved on, we have pointed out that your definition leads to the IRA being guilty of a war crime.



So answer the question please, was it a war crime or murder?

Don't try and avoid it again.

I don't know until the case is tried.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't know until the case is tried.

Here's a helpful reminder - it's murder either way, and all that's at issue is who's found guilty of murdering her. The organisation known to have murdered her, trial or no trial is the IRA.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

It is a war crime to torture and kill civilian informers who may have been acting under duress.

Or even if she wasn't acting under duress. But it's still classified as a war crime of murder.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I do know, I also know what it costs Britain and what the cyclical violence costs them which will be a huge factor in their thinking. And I have always been aware of the economic possibilities for a united island because it makes common sense. I like many expect a period of ajustment of course, how long that will be is what I will leave to experts an I won't pontificate on the basis of a hunch.

No hunch is required - simply an acknowledgment of income and outgoings. Quite why you believe that 'cyclical violence' would cease, or suddenly become more affordable, under a 32 county republic, escapes me, but I'm sure you're not just pulling this stuff out of your arse, right? I'm delighted to hear that the economic possibilities for a united Ireland just make common sense though - very insightful stuff there, if not completely devoid of any argument or rationale.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No hunch is required - simply an acknowledgment of income and outgoings. Quite why you believe that 'cyclical violence' would cease, or suddenly become more affordable, under a 32 county republic, escapes me, but I'm sure you're not just pulling this stuff out of your arse, right? I'm delighted to hear that the economic possibilities for a united Ireland just make common sense though - very insightful stuff there, if not completely devoid of any argument or rationale.

I don't believe that a campaign opposing a UI could survive or be sustained for very long , with the British and Irish governments uniting to stamp it out. They would need a supply line and between them the governments could strangle any supply, so opposition would be in the form of the usual throwing of toys from the pram.
I think when the time comes pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist anyway, as they will see the true nature of the relationship with Britain.

On the question of the economics, throw up the figures that you are basing your reasoning on and we'll have a look.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't believe that a campaign opposing a UI could survive or be sustained for very long , with the British and Irish governments uniting to stamp it out. They would need a supply line and between them the governments could strangle any supply, so opposition would be in the form of the usual throwing of toys from the pram.
I think when the time comes pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist anyway, as they will see the true nature of the relationship with Britain.

On the question of the economics, throw up the figures that you are basing your reasoning on and we'll have a look.

There is still a lot of unionist support on the mainland, especially in Scotland, but this is all guess work, let's just stick to the tangible stuff. How would you propose a UI deals with the massive state employment in the north? Areas like East and west belfast would cost Dublin more than most county's? NHS? Can the guards afford to buy and run the armoured vehicles? Helicopters? Will investment from multinationals drop with the almost certain trouble?

You believe there will be peace? Will the guards patrol the Shankill in a Ford focus? What if a guard gets killed and they clamp down on loyalists killing a few protesters and it all spirals out of control? How will the guards get on in strong nationalist areas like the lower falls where convoys of armoured cars are needed nightly for the joyriders etc? Realistically what would the police budget rise to? Double? Triple? Will the army need to be on the ground? Bring back the watch towers?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't believe that a campaign opposing a UI could survive or be sustained for very long , with the British and Irish governments uniting to stamp it out.

You believe that but you have no evidence to back it up. For the rest of us, if we believe that there is a risk (only a risk not a guarantee) of a return to violence in the event of a united Ireland, why would we vote for a united Ireland when the current status quo provides peace?

Happyman42 wrote: »

They would need a supply line and between them the governments could strangle any supply, so opposition would be in the form of the usual throwing of toys from the pram. .

Just like they stop the supply of arms and munitions to criminal gangs in say Limerick or Dublin. It has always been the case that where there is a buyer of arms, there is a supplier. Why would it be different in the case of a united Ireland?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think when the time comes pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist anyway, as they will see the true nature of the relationship with Britain..

Let us assume you are right and that pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist. A pragmatic approach to the question of a united Ireland would lead to a few questions:

- Will there be less violence in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is that the risk is that there will be greater violence

- Will I be better off financially and economically in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is no, as the removal of the British subsidy in the medium term will lead to increased taxes in a united Ireland

- Will I have better social rights in the event of a United Ireland? Access to abortion, contraception and divorce are easier in the current Northern Ireland so the answer is no.


Taken as a whole then, the pragmatic approach in the event of a United Ireland is to say no. Where many nationalists getting excited about the demographics fall down is when they fail to realise that a majority of nationalist will also take the same pragmatic approach and realise that a united Ireland in the short term is a bad idea.

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the question of the economics, throw up the figures that you are basing your reasoning on and we'll have a look.

The South is bankrupt. The North survives on a huge subsidy from the rest of the UK. You don't need any figures to know that a united Ireland makes no economic sense.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the question of the economics, throw up the figures that you are basing your reasoning on and we'll have a look.

Last year's NI annual deficit was €11.6 billion - Ireland's deficit for 2013 was €11.5 billion. Perhaps it's escaped your notice that our current deficit isn't sustainable as it stands, and in order to borrow, we've committed to reducing it to about half of those 2013 figures. That's an obligation to half our deficit, not double it.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

Last year's NI annual deficit was €11.6 billion - Ireland's deficit for 2013 was €11.5 billion. Perhaps it's escaped your notice that our current deficit isn't sustainable as it stands, and in order to borrow, we've committed to reducing it to about half of those 2013 figures. That's an obligation to half our deficit, not double it.

Dreamy nationalists don't live in a real world.

Just pretend that if there was a united Ireland tomorrow, the world will be rosy and everyone will be happy. Then when you question it, the response will be that is my opinion.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Dreamy nationalists don't live in a real world.

Just pretend that if there was a united Ireland tomorrow, the world will be rosy and everyone will be happy. Then when you question it, the response will be that is my opinion.

Everybody...including 'dreamy nationalists' agree that a UI won't happen today or tomorrow, and a period of adjustment will be required and potentially there will be some pain.
If our current difficulties in the South show anything it is that we are prepared for a good deal of pain if it pays off.

Two things; I believe like many others that economically, culturally and socially a United Ireland will pay off and I believe that our current difficulties will be sorted leaving a leaner and much better off Republic, it is why I am not on the street protesting and why I believe there is no unrest. We know a job of work has to be done.

Couple that with the British not wanting to stump up for the excesses of a failed statelet and you have stars coming into alignment.
What is facing the North sooner or later is a massive trimming of the money being spent on it from Britain, your very own Troika will bring down the budgets, of that there is no doubt.

On the subject of violence ahead of a reunification, I still cannot see how a campaign against re-unification from what will be a small rump of belligerents, can be sustained. They can't supply from the south and Britain, adamant that the process will succeed, will come down like a ton of bricks on any attempts to bring supplies from the mainland. Add a watchful and equally committed America to that equation and you have some street protests, wrecking of their own areas but very little else to contain.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Couple that with the British not wanting to stump up for the excesses of a failed statelet and you have stars coming into alignment.

The British have committed to securing the sovereignty of NI inside the UK until the point where a majority in NI vote otherwise. It's not going to happen otherwise - no 'stars will align' in that regard.

Any trimming of NI's running costs, will only happen in conjunction with trimming across the entire UK - the majority of NI's cost to government has nothing to do with exceptional/unique local overheads.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the subject of violence ahead of a reunification, I still cannot see how a campaign against re-unification from what will be a small rump of belligerents, can be sustained. They can't supply from the south and Britain, adamant that the process will succeed, will come down like a ton of bricks on any attempts to bring supplies from the mainland. Add a watchful and equally committed America to that equation and you have some street protests, wrecking of their own areas but very little else to contain.

You either have some fantastic belief in the ability of the governments to curtail terrorism in this post-unification scenario, or a particularly poor view on their current ability. Terrorism in NI was always about a small rump of belligerents.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Everybody...including 'dreamy nationalists' agree that a UI won't happen today or tomorrow, and a period of adjustment will be required and potentially there will be some pain.
If our current difficulties in the South show anything it is that we are prepared for a good deal of pain if it pays off.

You just don't get it. While we have got the deficit down and will hit 3% in 2015, we have been left with a huge debt overhang. While this won't affect us on a day-to-day basis, it does mean that the South could not take on the financial challenge of the North for at least 20 years. Even then, it would require higher taxes. Are you telling me that in 20 years time, if the people of the South were offered a choice of lower taxes or a united Ireland that they would vote in droves for a united Ireland.

Good luck with your dreaming but it will only be old aged pensioners and students who would vote for a united Ireland. The rest are too worried about paying the bills.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Two things; I believe like many others that economically, culturally and socially a United Ireland will pay off .

You keep saying this but there are also people going around saying that they believe the Earth is flat. Stating a belief but presenting no evidence to support it when all of the evidence suggests the opposite is madness.

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the subject of violence ahead of a reunification, I still cannot see how a campaign against re-unification from what will be a small rump of belligerents, can be sustained. They can't supply from the south and Britain, adamant that the process will succeed, will come down like a ton of bricks on any attempts to bring supplies from the mainland. Add a watchful and equally committed America to that equation and you have some street protests, wrecking of their own areas but very little else to contain.

Well, the next time there is a shooting in West Dublin or South Limerick, can you explain to me how they got those weapons?

It is not like in the old songs that were sung to you when the guns were brought into Dingle Bay. Nowadays, the smuggling is much more sophisticated than that. Our security forces cannot prevent child prostitutes, drugs and gang weapons being smuggled into the country, how will it be any different for loyalist terrorists?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The British have committed to securing the sovereignty of NI inside the UK until the point where a majority in NI vote otherwise. It's not going to happen otherwise - no 'stars will align' in that regard.

Any trimming of NI's running costs, will only happen in conjunction with trimming across the entire UK - the majority of NI's cost to government has nothing to do with exceptional/unique local overheads.

The British say many things and have a track record of being duplicitous, eg. 'We don't talk to terrorists' when in fact they where flat out talking.
My assessment is based on what I think the British are up to...and that is a 'long goodbye' scenario, part of which was seen in Marty being invited for din dins and Michael D's sleep over.

Godge wrote: »

You just don't get it. While we have got the deficit down and will hit 3% in 2015, we have been left with a huge debt overhang. While this won't affect us on a day-to-day basis, it does mean that the South could not take on the financial challenge of the North for at least 20 years. Even then, it would require higher taxes. Are you telling me that in 20 years time, if the people of the South were offered a choice of lower taxes or a united Ireland that they would vote in droves for a united Ireland.

Like I said, Irish people have demonstrated that they will tolerate quite a bit of austerity if the pay off is seen as worth it.

alastair wrote: »

You either have some fantastic belief in the ability of the governments to curtail terrorism in this post-unification scenario, or a particularly poor view on their current ability. Terrorism in NI was always about a small rump of belligerents.

It is not like in the old songs that were sung to you when the guns were brought into Dingle Bay. Nowadays, the smuggling is much more sophisticated than that. Our security forces cannot prevent child prostitutes, drugs and gang weapons being smuggled into the country, how will it be any different for loyalist terrorists?

Even at the height of the troubles the Loyalists couldn't effectively mount an operation in the South without the collusion of the security forces, that won't be available and said 'security forces' will be their enemies.
I believe anybody who can envisage a sustained campaign capable of bringing down any new arrangements( and an attempt at one will be expected and planned for) are living in a fairyland.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Like I said, Irish people have demonstrated that they will tolerate quite a bit of austerity if the pay off is seen as worth it.

Such a simplistic view of life, you are equating peoples' financial future with a united Ireland. There is no such link. Once someone goes beyond a simplistic point such as in the post below, you have no answer and revert to type with phrases like

"it will be worth it"
"people will pay the price"
"they will be stopped by the British"
"no selfish strategic interest means the British will be happy to abandon the North"

You know, that is not reality.

Godge wrote: »

Let us assume you are right and that pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist. A pragmatic approach to the question of a united Ireland would lead to a few questions:

- Will there be less violence in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is that the risk is that there will be greater violence

- Will I be better off financially and economically in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is no, as the removal of the British subsidy in the medium term will lead to increased taxes in a united Ireland

- Will I have better social rights in the event of a United Ireland? Access to abortion, contraception and divorce are easier in the current Northern Ireland so the answer is no.


Taken as a whole then, the pragmatic approach in the event of a United Ireland is to say no. Where many nationalists getting excited about the demographics fall down is when they fail to realise that a majority of nationalist will also take the same pragmatic approach and realise that a united Ireland in the short term is a bad idea.

.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Even at the height of the troubles the Loyalists couldn't effectively mount an operation in the South without the collusion of the security forces, that won't be available and said 'security forces' will be their enemies.
I believe anybody who can envisage a sustained campaign capable of bringing down any new arrangements( and an attempt at one will be expected and planned for) are living in a fairyland.

So why can't the wonderful security forces eliminate gun crime in Dublin and stop the smuggling of drugs and child prostitutes? If we were all living in fairyland, I might expect that we could presume like you do that loyalist terrorists would be easily stopped but we don't live in such a fairyland.

Happyman42

Originally Posted by Godge View Post
Let us assume you are right and that pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist. A pragmatic approach to the question of a united Ireland would lead to a few questions:

- Will there be less violence in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is that the risk is that there will be greater violence.

Yes there is a risk of violence, but it won't be violence that hasn't been planned for and if people are clear on what is happening and what will happen, then I think the chances of that violence being sustained or capable of destroying new arrangements are low. I fail to see again, where thiss new capability is going to come from, given that loyalists will be unable to depend on state collusion.

- Will I be better off financially and economically in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is no, as the removal of the British subsidy in the medium term will lead to increased taxes in a united Ireland

That in fairness, is your belief, I have mine.

- Will I have better social rights in the event of a United Ireland? Access to abortion, contraception and divorce are easier in the current Northern Ireland so the answer is no.

I think a lot of Unionists would favour such a regime!
Make no mistake here, what I will be looking for is a new, truly secular republic, so no worries on that front.

Taken as a whole then, the pragmatic approach in the event of a United Ireland is to say no. Where many nationalists getting excited about the demographics fall down is when they fail to realise that a majority of nationalist will also take the same pragmatic approach and realise that a united Ireland in the short term is a bad idea.

I have said that 'everybody' believes that this won't happen in the short term. Proper planning and time will be required.

So why can't the wonderful security forces eliminate gun crime in Dublin and stop the smuggling of drugs and child prostitutes? If we were all living in fairyland, I might expect that we could presume like you do that loyalist terrorists would be easily stopped but we don't live in such a fairyland.

If you think that a few guns will offer a threat to the new arrangements, dream on.
The arsenal required, the know how and the logistics will far exceed what was available to any group during the troubles.
I still cannot in reality see a sustained campaign, which even if they succeed in mounting one, will be fruitless, and have no credible goals...you cannot bomb your way back into a relationship with Britain, what worth would that have? Be pragmatic here, because your average person will be.

gallag

It's laughable that you believe the unionists won't be able to launch a campaign of terror, how could the IRA do it against the world's second largest military super power but the unionist community would not be able to stand up to the might of the Irish security services? I suppose in your head unionists are just silly head's with no talent for it unlike your republican hero's?

The unionists never had a desire to really attack the south, the republicans were spurned on by a perceived attack on their civil rights and had reason to fight harder, things like the hunger strikes and bloody Sunday and even smaller incidents like rioting youths being accidentally killed by rubber bullet and even fully justifiable actions like killing IRA men in gun battles all served to make the IRA fight harder than the unionists ever were, the unionists were not battling a state, they perceived they were on the defensive.

Fast forward to a united Ireland, of course you will accept the unionist rioting will be on an unprecedented scale, then the Irish government will realise how hard a job the brits had! What happens when the Irish security services kill the first unionists? Could be a poor guard shooting a plastic bullet under attack from petrol bomb, or a running over a teen by mistake, will the prisons start filling? Will the unionists have their hunger strikers? Tense situations with rioters and young untrained solders can soon spiral into a bloody Sunday.

Then the unionists would be at the same point of the CNR community in the 60's & 70's, they would have the hunger and a state to attack, remember one of the biggest employers of the unionist community has been the army, thousands of trained solders in the unionist ranks the question in this seniero is could the Irish government fight back?