Unification?

eire4

Godge wrote: »

I have been called a "partitionist" on here so I presume you are expecting a reply from the likes of me.

I would be happy to see a United Ireland.

However, I believe that it should not happen until the unionist community are happy with the idea and that there is no cost to the taxpayers of the South (including in the longer term).

That is why I believe it will not happen in my lifetime. It is also why I believe it is up to advocates of a united Ireland in a shorter timeframe to develop the arguments and ideas that will persuade me. Given what I have read on here, I don't believe there are many equipped to do so.

I am not persuming any reply from you I simply put the question out there. It was a question that was put in hypothetical terms looking for a simple answer.

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Is there any point in having a discussion with you ? So many mistakes and misinterpretations in such a short paragraph !

- no one expects change without debate and discussion
- you have no idea what I support.
- I have asked in loads of posts for your ideas on the future only to be given the we must have 'discussion and debate ' non answer .I am asking you for discussion and debate !
- I am very surprised there are no details from you.

I already outlined a number of issues and ideas of my own in one of my posts and you ignored it. The starting point for a debate is right there but you skipped over it.
And again, you're being totally unreasonable in expecting one poster to give detailed outline of reunification on Boards, it's preposterous.

Saintleger

eire4 wrote: »

You have already stated that all things been sorted and no obstacles to unifcation that your still not in favour only neutral to that happening. So in short you have said your not in favour of unification so why would he waste his time having that conversation when you have made you position very clear.

I don't think you can say IwasFrozen is not in favour of an United Ireland just because (I suspect like myself) the constitutional question is far from high on his/her lists of priorities when it comes to the future of the island.

If he can't convince people who are neutral to it he will have a much harder time convincing the 100,000s of people north of the border (and I suspect south too) who would consider themselves strongly opposed to a UI.

Godge

eire4 wrote: »

I am not persuming any reply from you I simply put the question out there. It was a question that was put in hypothetical terms looking for a simple answer.

Having got an answer to your question, are you satisfied? Or are you going to explain further?

eire4

Saintleger wrote: »

I don't think you can say IwasFrozen is not in favour of an United Ireland just because (I suspect like myself) the constitutional question is far from high on his/her lists of priorities when it comes to the future of the island.

If he can't convince people who are neutral to it he will have a much harder time convincing the 100,000s of people north of the border (and I suspect south too) who would consider themselves strongly opposed to a UI.

If it is so low on his list of priorities he sure has participated on this thread a lot. But of course that is only speculation on your part. I am sure he can say himself how high on his list of priorities it is or is not.


As for him not being in favour he answered very clearly to my hypothetical question that he was neutral thus not in favour only neutral to Irish unification even in a hypothetical situation where there were no obstacles to said Irish unification.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I already outlined a number of issues and ideas of my own in one of my posts and you ignored it. The starting point for a debate is right there but you skipped over it.
And again, you're being totally unreasonable in expecting one poster to give detailed outline of reunification on Boards, it's preposterous.

But the answer you have given is long on generalities and short on specifics.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is a huge issue that requires the cooperation of all parties, a detailed study of the economic challenges it would bring, a breakdown of current and projected costs and the careful planning and co-operation of two governments.
What is it exactly that you want one person to write in a Boards post?

It doesn't require the co-operation of all parties.

The onus is and should be on those who want a united Ireland now or in the near future to persuade those who are ambivalent, don't mind if they wait or who have concerns about cost to change their minds.

Those who are ambivalent, don't mind if they wait or who have concerns about cost will just sit and do nothing or vote no in a referendum until someone from the unity side comes along and persuades them.

eire4

Godge wrote: »

Having got an answer to your question, are you satisfied? Or are you going to explain further?

No explantion required was a hypothetical question which you answered. All done and dusted.
Don't you just wish everything was so neat and tidy:)

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nothing is set in stone. That's not how the world works.


No. But I see no reason to suggest things would have been different in a unified Ireland. This isn't an argument for unification.

Ah well then, sure we will all shuffle off now an give up on the idea, Iwasfrozen doesn't like the idea. Bugger!

It's relevant because you claimed investment from the EU UK and US would help US through post unification turbulence. Naturally my follow up question is how much would it help us?

This much.

If it can't be proven then we're wasting our time here. I'm not going to vote to send my country into the abyss without concrete objective proof it will be beneficial.

Who was it was saying nobody was talking about 'doom' and abyssi? :rolleyes:

Saintleger

eire4 wrote: »

If it is so low on his list of priorities he sure has participated on this thread a lot. But of course that is only speculation on your part. I am sure he can say himself how high on his list of priorities it is or is not.


As for him not being in favour he answered very clearly to my hypothetical question that he was neutral thus not in favour only neutral to Irish unification even in a hypothetical situation where there were no obstacles to said Irish unification.

But just because you're Neutral doesn't necessarily mean you're not in favor. Say the recent referendum on lowering the voting age to 16. I'm interested in the debate but over all I'm Neutral on the issue but I don't think that means I'm against it.

The constitutional question is not top of my priority list but having lived in NI all my life I can't hep be interested in what other people's opinions are. I don't want to speak for IWF but I would consider the position he holds as similar to my own.

eire4

Saintleger wrote: »

But just because you're Neutral doesn't necessarily mean you're not in favor. Say the recent referendum on lowering the voting age to 16. I'm interested in the debate but over all I'm Neutral on the issue but I don't think that means I'm against it.

The constitutional question is not top of my priority list but having lived in NI all my life I can't hep be interested in what other people's opinions are. I don't want to speak for IWF but I would consider the position he holds as similar to my own.

In fairness I definitely have acknowledged that he said he was neutral to unification even under the hypothetical situation of there being no obstacles at all. Given that hypothetical where there is nothing problematic blocking unification he still isn't in favour. Makes his stance quite clear really.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Can you possibly answer the question that was asked or chose not to reply at all your choice? It was as stated completely a hypothetical question.

I think my answer to that was fairly clear...

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I already outlined a number of issues and ideas of my own in one of my posts and you ignored it. The starting point for a debate is right there but you skipped over it.
And again, you're being totally unreasonable in expecting one poster to give detailed outline of reunification on Boards, it's preposterous.

You really do go out of your way to provide non answers . So to kick this 'debate' off ,I would like to raise some issues and maybe we can proceed from there .


- If one of the requirements of the Unionists is that we re-join the Commonwealth would you accept that .

- If one of the requirements of the Unionist community is that we give up neutrality and join NATO , would that be a problem.

- Are there any preconditions

Note these are all philosophical questions ( if I might call them that) and do not require any economic input ,so they should be amenable to discussion.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

I think my answer to that was fairly clear...

Yes it is clear you chose not to answer my question but instead asked another question and then talked about people in general. At no point did you give your own answer for yourself which is what the question asks. Or you could chose not to answer the question and ignore it.
Here again is the question as I posted it.




I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind.


If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I have been called a "partitionist" on here so I presume you are expecting a reply from the likes of me.

I would be happy to see a United Ireland.

However, I believe that it should not happen until the unionist community are happy with the idea and that there is no cost to the taxpayers of the South (including in the longer term).

That is why I believe it will not happen in my lifetime. It is also why I believe it is up to advocates of a united Ireland in a shorter timeframe to develop the arguments and ideas that will persuade me. Given what I have read on here, I don't believe there are many equipped to do so.

Thankfully the GFA recognised the root of the conflict.

It won't matter if one side is happy or not (just as it doesn't matter if nationalists/republicans are happy with the status quo now) it will be the decision of the majority.
Like the south, the north will and is facing pain economically as the British withdraw. And why is that? Well the optimist in me thinks they are sprucing the place up in order to get rid of it. Streamlining so to speak.
The writing is on the wall for the current status of NI, there will be a debate on it's future. of that I am absolutely sure. And it is not that far away...hang around on this temporal globe Godge, na bhi ág shuffling do mortal coil, I'd like you to be part of the debate!

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

You really do go out of your way to provide non answers . So to kick this 'debate' off ,I would like to raise some issues and maybe we can proceed from there .


- If one of the requirements of the Unionists is that we re-join the Commonwealth would you accept that .

- If one of the requirements of the Unionist community is that we give up neutrality and join NATO , would that be a problem.

- Are there any preconditions

Note these are all philosophical questions ( if I might call them that) and do not require any economic input ,so they should be amenable to discussion.

IMO your questions about the commonwealth and neutrality and nato are decisions that have to be taken by the entire electorate of any new entity. You cannot be serious suggesting that they should be decided beforehand?
Each interest or party would be free to advocate for them in a new entity. That is called democracy.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

IMO your questions about the commonwealth and neutrality and nato are decisions that have to be taken by the entire electorate of any new entity. You cannot be serious suggesting that they should be decided beforehand?
Each interest or party would be free to advocate for them in a new entity. That is called democracy.

Not asking you to decide at all , just what are your views . If the unionists put some or all of them as preconditions to unity (seeing as they have a veto) would they be acceptable ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Not asking you to decide at all , just what are your views . If the unionists put some or all of them as preconditions to unity (seeing as they have a veto) would they be acceptable ?

I would personally be against them but a s a democrat I would abide by the majority.

And I am also against (totally) anybody being allowed to set pre-conditions. Unionists have a 'veto' by dint of being the majority.

'Veto's' are what caused the conflict.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I would personally be against them but a s a democrat I would abide by the majority.

And I am also against (totally) anybody being allowed to set pre-conditions. Unionists have a 'veto' by dint of being the majority.

'Veto's' are what caused the conflict.

Well we gave them the 'veto' , we can't object now if they choose to use it.

And no veto's didn't cause the conflict ,abuse of power did .

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

You really do go out of your way to provide non answers . So to kick this 'debate' off ,I would like to raise some issues and maybe we can proceed from there .


- If one of the requirements of the Unionists is that we re-join the Commonwealth would you accept that .

- If one of the requirements of the Unionist community is that we give up neutrality and join NATO , would that be a problem.

- Are there any preconditions

Note these are all philosophical questions ( if I might call them that) and do not require any economic input ,so they should be amenable to discussion.

Me, personally?

1 - I could be open to that as a symbolic gesture to unionists providing the english monarchy was not the head of state and that Britain had zero say in the running of the country.

2 - Absolutely not

3 - Well, for me personally, neutrality would be a big one. I would also be prepared to immediately go to war if it were not explicitly stated in any agreement that all taps now come with a third option; hot, cold and whiskey.

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Me, personally?

1 - I could be open to that as a symbolic gesture to unionists providing the english monarchy was not the head of state and that Britain had zero say in the running of the country.

2 - Absolutely not

3 - Well, for me personally, neutrality would be a big one. I would also be prepared to immediately go to war if it were not explicitly stated in any agreement that all taps now come with a third option; hot, cold and whiskey.

So you do have preconditions ?

Iwasfrozen

eire4 wrote: »

You have already stated that all things been sorted and no obstacles to unifcation that your still not in favour only neutral to that happening. So in short you have said your not in favour of unification so why would he waste his time having that conversation when you have made you position very clear.

2 reasons my neutral position is not set in stone and I'm a voter.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ah well then, sure we will all shuffle off now an give up on the idea, Iwasfrozen doesn't like the idea. Bugger!




This much.




Who was it was saying nobody was talking about 'doom' and abyssi? :rolleyes:

If this is the articulation of the pro unity side you have a tough fight ahead.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If this is the articulation of the pro unity side you have a tough fight ahead.

Canvassing against the 'No No No Never because doom is ahead' brigade will be a doodle imo.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Canvassing against the 'No No No Never because doom is ahead' brigade will be a doodle imo.

I would say you're both roughly in the same league.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would say you're both roughly in the same league.

People who talk about non existent abysses I mean.

Sheldons Brain

Godge wrote: »

I would be happy to see a United Ireland.

However, I believe that it should not happen until the unionist community are happy with the idea and that there is no cost to the taxpayers of the South (including in the longer term).

I know what you mean, I'd be happy to see gay marriage, as long as the Iona Institute agree and there is no cost to the taxpayers of the South.

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

So you do have preconditions ?

I have preferences, certainly, I assume everyone does, but I remind you that i'm only speaking for myself here and would adhere to whatever the outcome of a true all-Ireland referendum was.
I'm not getting the point of this line of questioning here

Crooked Jack

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I know what you mean, I'd be happy to see gay marriage, as long as the Iona Institute agree and there is no cost to the taxpayers of the South.

Those Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiries must have cost a few quid, did we really need them?

Sheldons Brain

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Those Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiries must have cost a few quid, did we really need them?

Yes, we did, it ensured that evil and perversion was less likely to happen in the future.
A further investigation into British collusion in the Dublin bombings would also be a good use of money.

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I have preferences, certainly, I assume everyone does, but I remind you that i'm only speaking for myself here and would adhere to whatever the outcome of a true all-Ireland referendum was.
I'm not getting the point of this line of questioning here

I am at least trying to put some detail to the type of issues we might face and not just stating generalisations .

Richard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Me, personally?

marienbad wrote:

Originally Posted by marienbad View Post
You really do go out of your way to provide non answers . So to kick this 'debate' off ,I would like to raise some issues and maybe we can proceed from there .


- If one of the requirements of the Unionists is that we re-join the Commonwealth would you accept that .

- If one of the requirements of the Unionist community is that we give up neutrality and join NATO , would that be a problem.

- Are there any preconditions

Note these are all philosophical questions ( if I might call them that) and do not require any economic input ,so they should be amenable to discussion.

1 - I could be open to that as a symbolic gesture to unionists providing the english monarchy was not the head of state and that Britain had zero say in the running of the country.

2 - Absolutely not

3 - Well, for me personally, neutrality would be a big one. I would also be prepared to immediately go to war if it were not explicitly stated in any agreement that all taps now come with a third option; hot, cold and whiskey.

I think for many unionists, having a United Ireland part of the Commonwealth would be important but I really don't think there would be clamouring to join NATO.

I don't think a UI is in any way likely (or currently particularly desirable), but as time goes on, more nationalists will settle for partition whilst the numbers support it, whilst more unionists could put up with a United Ireland if it was desirable/inevitable.

Saintleger

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I know what you mean, I'd be happy to see gay marriage, as long as the Iona Institute agree and there is no cost to the taxpayers of the South.

Apples and oranges. Accept it or not the Unionists in the North are committed to their British identity. Even if there was a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland who wanted a UI and the it was rejected on mass by the Unionist community there is no way there could be a stable Unified Island.

The sad fact is that here in the North we are still not in a position where we can have a true constitutional Democracy where the majority rules. The reason the GFA has been successful is because it is built on the idea of consensus. The Republic, like the UK have mature systems where, in the case of the gay marriage referendum the majority can be listened too.

The fact is if we had a similar system in the north the DUP and UUP form a government. Like it or not but we are still a very special case.

That's why i firmly believe that with out the Unionist community being convinced a UI can never happen successfully.

Happyman42

Saintleger wrote: »

That's why i firmly believe that with out the Unionist community being convinced a UI can never happen successfully.

How so?
The GFA is the agreement everybody signed up to.
The same words were used in the run up to it...'Never', 'No', 'Sellout' etc, but grassroots Unionism accepted it and got on with it with their politicians indulging in the old rhetoric but essentially implementing it, including a belligerent DUP.
With Britain actively encouraging and backing (which I believe is what will happen, all the signs are there that it will) a UI when the time comes I think grassroots Unionism will be prepared to take pragmatic solutions about the best options for their futures. In fact, I think that grassroots Unionism accepted the GFA because it realised what it was...a tacit British withdrawal

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

How so?
The GFA is the agreement everybody signed up to.
The same words were used in the run up to it...'Never', 'No', 'Sellout' etc, but grassroots Unionism accepted it and got on with it with their politicians indulging in the old rhetoric but essentially implementing it, including a belligerent DUP.
With Britain actively encouraging and backing (which I believe is what will happen, all the signs are there that it will) a UI when the time comes I think grassroots Unionism will be prepared to take pragmatic solutions about the best options for their futures. In fact, I think that grassroots Unionism accepted the GFA because it realised what it was...a tacit British withdrawal

How so? I outlined it in my above post. NI's Assembly is based on consensus between the two major grouping in NI, the only way I believe a UI could happen is if it was done under similar conditions where the majority of Unionists would want to buy into it.

At the time the UUP and PUP both backed it. Yes the Dup were against it in 1998 but at the time they did not represent the majority of the Unionist community. The GFA works because since 1998 it has continued to enjoy cross community support, with out it, it simply wouldn't function.

But if you are saying that grassroots Unionism by accepting the GFA did so under the belief that it would eventually lead to a UI then you are clearly a lot more positive on their feeling towards a UI than me. if that was the case then a majority of Unionists do want a UI... they perhaps just don't know it yet?

Stop me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming you very strongly consider yourself Irish and it's an important part of your identity. I say this because it think it best outlines where our differing view points are coming from. I believe that the 100,000s of people North of the boarder consider themselves British every bit as strongly as you consider your self Irish. it's in here that the difficulty lies in obtaining a UI for those who want it.

Happyman42

Saintleger wrote: »

How so? I outlined it in my above post. NI's Assembly is based on consensus between the two major grouping in NI, the only way I believe a UI could happen is if it was done under similar conditions where the majority of Unionists would want to buy into it.

At the time the UUP and PUP both backed it. Yes the Dup were against it in 1998 but at the time they did not represent the majority of the Unionist community. The GFA works because since 1998 it has continued to enjoy cross community support, with out it, it simply wouldn't function.

You don't address the simple fact that Unionism accepted and implemented it despite all the huffing and huffing from their political representatives, there was no civil disobedience from a significant and potentially destabilising grassroots.
It is from this that I get my theory of a 'pragmatic Unionism' that is not reflected by the belligerent rhetoric of it's serving representatives. An interesting dichotomy that is prevalent in a lot of what comes from Unionism - apocalypse is threatened but never materialises.

But if you are saying that grassroots Unionism by accepting the GFA did so under the belief that it would eventually lead to a UI then you are clearly a lot more positive on their feeling towards a UI than me. if that was the case then a majority of Unionists do want a UI... they perhaps just don't know it yet?

I am not saying that at all, but I do believe that there is an acceptance (not verbalised) that decisions on the future will have to be taken and that they may have to make the best of unpalatable realities.

Stop me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming you very strongly consider yourself Irish and it's an important part of your identity. I say this because it think it best outlines where our differing view points are coming from. I believe that the 100,000s of people North of the boarder consider themselves British every bit as strongly as you consider your self Irish. it's in here that the difficulty lies in obtaining a UI for those who want it.

I think the British government's attitude to a proposed UI will be pivotal in focussing Unionists minds on what the GFA actually was...as said previously - the tacit withdrawal of Britain.

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

You don't address the simple fact that Unionism accepted and implemented it despite all the huffing and huffing from their political representatives, there was no civil disobedience from a significant and potentially destabilising grassroots.
It is from this that I get my theory of a 'pragmatic Unionism' that is not reflected by the belligerent rhetoric of it's serving representatives. An interesting dichotomy that is prevalent in a lot of what comes from Unionism - apocalypse is threatened but never materialises.

Yes I agree the the DUP did accept the GFA eventually, just as SF did too eventually and yes they didn't grind NI to a halt because of however at the time and still to this day there is a majority of Unionists who back and see the good of the GFA.

However going back to my original post imo the gfa works because of consensus not democracy, Both sides of the community bought in to the concept of consensus, they did not buy into the idea of a UI or that the natural progression of the GFA was a UI infact I clearly remember Unionist politicians selling the GFA on the basis that it secures the union.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am not saying that at all, but I do believe that there is an acceptance (not verbalised) that decisions on the future will have to be taken and that they may have to make the best of unpalatable realities.

I think the British government's attitude to a proposed UI will be pivotal in focussing Unionists minds on what the GFA actually was...as said previously - the tacit withdrawal of Britain.

I agree with you that Britain would love to see the GFA leading to a UI and have it but where i dissagree is that they have any sway in convincing the Unionist population in the north to give up their Britishness.

Godge

Saintleger wrote: »

Yes I agree the the DUP did accept the GFA eventually, just as SF did too eventually and yes they didn't grind NI to a halt because of however at the time and still to this day there is a majority of Unionists who back and see the good of the GFA.

However going back to my original post imo the gfa works because of consensus not democracy, Both sides of the community bought in to the concept of consensus, they did not buy into the idea of a UI or that the natural progression of the GFA was a UI infact I clearly remember Unionist politicians selling the GFA on the basis that it secures the union.



I agree with you that Britain would love to see the GFA leading to a UI and have it but where i dissagree is that they have any sway in convincing the Unionist population in the north to give up their Britishness.

The unionist politicians were correct - it did secure the Union.

You have a very good perspective on this issue.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The unionist politicians were correct - it did secure the Union.
.

And Unionist politicians have NEVER been wrong before or have never told their electorate porkies.
The Union is only as secure as a Unionist majority and the GFA includes the commitment by the British to secure a United Ireland if the majority decide that is what they want.
It is in that commitment that the tacit withdrawal lies. Unionists will be left to their fates, their will be no ships (like the Falklanders got) sent to secure their 'Britishness'. As I have said repeatedly, they still need to face up to this fact, the 'fleg' protesters have and are taking their sad action. It's nigh on time their politicians started the debate about the realities of the future.

eire4

Saintleger wrote: »

Apples and oranges. Accept it or not the Unionists in the North are committed to their British identity. Even if there was a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland who wanted a UI and the it was rejected on mass by the Unionist community there is no way there could be a stable Unified Island.

The sad fact is that here in the North we are still not in a position where we can have a true constitutional Democracy where the majority rules. The reason the GFA has been successful is because it is built on the idea of consensus. The Republic, like the UK have mature systems where, in the case of the gay marriage referendum the majority can be listened too.

The fact is if we had a similar system in the north the DUP and UUP form a government. Like it or not but we are still a very special case.

That's why i firmly believe that with out the Unionist community being convinced a UI can never happen successfully.

To be fair Ireland's system of government is very centralized dangerously so I would say and certainly not something to be touting as a model to look at.

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

And Unionist politicians have NEVER been wrong before or have never told their electorate porkies.
The Union is only as secure as a Unionist majority and the GFA includes the commitment by the British to secure a United Ireland if the majority decide that is what they want.
.

Quite correct , but if a UI happened due to a majority in the north wanting it and the majority of Unionists rejected the idea I can't see it leading to a stable unifed country. That's just my opinion, but if you really want it to work the Unionist have to be convinced there is a place for them in this new UI and that will not be an easy thing to achieve.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is in that commitment that the tacit withdrawal lies. Unionists will be left to their fates, their will be no ships (like the Falklanders got) sent to secure their 'Britishness'. As I have said repeatedly, they still need to face up to this fact, the 'fleg' protesters have and are taking their sad action. It's nigh on time their politicians started the debate about the realities of the future

Again I can see where you're coming from but 1. a United Ireland by majority vote is still decades off IMO. I hold and Irish Passport and I wouldn't be convinced a UI under any circumstances would be a good thing for the island, and I don't think i'm alone in thinking that.

IMO their Britishness has to be respected just as much as your or my Irishness.

Saintleger

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair Ireland's system of government is very centralized dangerously so I would say and certainly not something to be touting as a model to look at.

You mean around dublin? I like the PR System in the south. Tends to be very representative of the voters at large

eire4

Saintleger wrote: »

You mean around dublin? I like the PR System in the south. Tends to be very representative of the voters at large

No I do not mean the PR system or location wise. I mean our governmental system is centralized in terms of where power is within the system and in my opinion is dangerously over centralzied.

Banjoxed

The challenge that Nationalists need to face is that bombing and shooting didn't work, and any amount of semantics and verbal trickery won't work either to change the minds of those who consider themselves British in the North.

Friendship and respect are a damn sight better.

Saintleger

eire4 wrote: »

No I do not mean the PR system or location wise. I mean our governmental system is centralized in terms of where power is within the system and in my opinion is dangerously over centralzied.

Just out of curiosity which type of government around the world would you feel is superior?

Happyman42

Banjoxed wrote: »

Friendship and respect are a damn sight better.

Yeh, cause that's what Nationalists had in NI...respect and equality of esteem and the freedom to achieve on a par with others. :rolleyes: And of course, nobody ever visited violence on them!
Society broke down in NI for complex reasons, and your 'challenge' is to recognise that, because your judgmental partisan nonsense is kinda useless to any solution.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh, cause that's what Nationalists had in NI...respect and equality of esteem and the freedom to achieve on a par with others. :rolleyes: And of course, nobody ever visited violence on them!
Society broke down in NI for complex reasons, and your 'challenge' is to recognise that, because your judgmental partisan nonsense is kinda useless to any solution.

That time is now ancient history, it was decades before SF/IRA were protecting child abusers and we have been told many times that times were different when the child abusers were being moved to safe houses.

Banjoxed

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh, cause that's what Nationalists had in NI...respect and equality of esteem and the freedom to achieve on a par with others. :rolleyes: And of course, nobody ever visited violence on them!
Society broke down in NI for complex reasons, and your 'challenge' is to recognise that, because your judgmental partisan nonsense is kinda useless to any solution.

Well that's what you call it - and my position is that 1921-1972 in the North was grotesquely unfair; but what we have now is fundamentally what was offered in 1972 and all the slaughter was futile, immoral and utterly counter productive.

A UI on the basis of mutual agreement is what I'd like to see. If it is on the basis of "tough if you don't like it" then what we have will do.

Happyman42

Banjoxed wrote: »

Well that's what you call it - and my position is that 1921-1972 in the North was grotesquely unfair; but what we have now is fundamentally what was offered in 1972 and all the slaughter was futile, immoral and utterly counter productive.

A UI on the basis of mutual agreement is what I'd like to see. If it is on the basis of "tough if you don't like it" then what we have will do.

So, lets get this version of history straight...everything was 'unfair' up until 1972, then Sunningdale collapsed (let's ignore who collapsed it and who colluded with who to do that) and then the big bad bogey men and women of the IRA appeared and destroyed all the good intentions of the Unionists and Loyalists and oppressed their own people...(lets ignore too that the same people still vote for the political wing of the IRA in huge numbers even though the IRA have long since disbanded)

That your position? :rolleyes:

Nobody is advocating a UI without mutual agreement. Since partition, Nationalists have been told by the likes of you and those with your selective understanding of history...'tough if you don't like it'.
Nobody, should be allowed to precondition a debate about the future of this island and a decision on all our futures.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

That time is now ancient history,

Doesn't stop you from wanting to selectively punish only some for what happened in 'ancient history'.
You wouldn't be just suiting yourself when typing that?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Doesn't stop you from wanting to selectively punish only some for what happened in 'ancient history'.
You wouldn't be just suiting yourself when typing that?

1970 may well be ancient history, but 1990 is not, neither is 1995, 1998 or 2006.