Opinions on Irish identity

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only reason the Loyalist/Unionists didn't kill far more was their access to arms and explosives. Something their leaders complained about.


They simply hadn't the same number of munitions or the know how.

While arming a group would be more difficult in this day and age, it would become significantly more difficult for Loyalists/Unionism and it comes down to geography and where they are. Frankly they are hemmed in.
They no longer have the ability to secretly collude, with the police or the army either. Those days are over.
Neither have they the UDR to draw weaponry from. One of the reasons it was disbanded was because it was bleeding weaponry to anyone who wanted it apparently.

Contrast that with how the IRA ran their campaign during the previous conflict. The entire coastline to land arms and explosives, a much much bigger hinterland dotted with support. Significantly easier to maintain and sustain a campaign.

Yes there will probably be tremendous anger in some Unionist/loyalist identities but other than localised rioting and sporadic attacks I cannot see where a 'sustained campaign' capable of striking at the heart of the economy is going to come from.

In the age of the internet any half competent person can learn how to assemble a viable bomb from readily available household chemicals. Times have changed.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only reason the Loyalist/Unionists didn't kill far more was their access to arms and explosives. Something their leaders complained about.


They simply hadn't the same number of munitions or the know how.

While arming a group would be more difficult in this day and age, it would become significantly more difficult for Loyalists/Unionism and it comes down to geography and where they are. Frankly they are hemmed in.
They no longer have the ability to secretly collude, with the police or the army either. Those days are over.
Neither have they the UDR to draw weaponry from. One of the reasons it was disbanded was because it was bleeding weaponry to anyone who wanted it apparently.

Contrast that with how the IRA ran their campaign during the previous conflict. The entire coastline to land arms and explosives, a much much bigger hinterland dotted with support. Significantly easier to maintain and sustain a campaign.

Yes there will probably be tremendous anger in some Unionist/loyalist identities but other than localised rioting and sporadic attacks I cannot see where a 'sustained campaign' capable of striking at the heart of the economy is going to come from.

I really don't get the "hemmed in" argument or the geographical one. Faced with the greatest security on borders, the biggest intelligence operations and armed police on the streets, Islamic terrorists were still able to bomb Paris. How do you intend to keep loyalists "hemmed in"? Restrictions on travel? House arrest? Armed street patrols?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

In the age of the internet any half competent person can learn how to assemble a viable bomb from readily available household chemicals. Times have changed.

You still have to get it to the target.

I really don't get the "hemmed in" argument or the geographical one. Faced with the greatest security on borders, the biggest intelligence operations and armed police on the streets, Islamic terrorists were still able to bomb Paris. How do you intend to keep loyalists "hemmed in"? Restrictions on travel? House arrest? Armed street patrols?

You are comparing Unionism/Loyalism to IS? Who have networks of support btw. They don't operate alone nor do they have to get bombs and munitions from their homeplace to target. Geography and logistics are stacked against them in northern Ireland. Sorry I see no comparison tbh.
Also, fervent supporters they may be but suicide bombers? Not gonna happen imo.
But maybe you know different,

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You still have to get it to the target.


You are comparing Unionism/Loyalism to IS? Who have networks of support btw. They don't operate alone nor do they have to get bombs and munitions from their homeplace to target. Geography and logistics are stacked against them in northern Ireland. Sorry I see no comparison tbh.
Also, fervent supporters they may be but suicide bombers? Not gonna happen imo.
But maybe you know different,

It doesn't take much to drive a van down a cycle lane in the centre of Dublin. Time it right and you can jump out of one van into another one and be off out the Port Tunnel before the gardai arrive. Are you going to impose travel restrictions on loyalists so that they can't drive vans to Dublin?

Are you going to stop loyalist farmers from stockpiling fertiliser?

A Brave New World of a united Ireland awaits us, it seems.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

In the age of the internet any half competent person can learn how to assemble a viable bomb from readily available household chemicals. Times have changed.

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't take much to drive a van down a cycle lane in the centre of Dublin. Time it right and you can jump out of one van into another one and be off out the Port Tunnel before the gardai arrive. Are you going to impose travel restrictions on loyalists so that they can't drive vans to Dublin?

Are you going to stop loyalist farmers from stockpiling fertiliser?

A Brave New World of a united Ireland awaits us, it seems.

You dreamt up a scenario in your head and have called it a Brave New World that awaits us?

Loyalism could have done such things at any time, there were vans in the 70's 80's and 90's too. But they couldn't manage it.
It has gotten harder to do, not easier.

And if Loyalists are going to use a traffic tunnel to escape then I don't think we have to worry much about IQ tbh.

The Golden Miller

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You dreamt up a scenario in your head and have called it a Brave New World that awaits us?

Loyalism could have done such things at any time, there were vans in the 70's 80's and 90's too. But they couldn't manage it.
It has gotten harder to do, not easier.

And if Loyalists are going to use a traffic tunnel to escape then I don't think we have to worry much about IQ tbh.

Fairy story stuff

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

To think Unionists/Loyalists couldn't start a terror campaign by bombing and shooting Garda and Irish soldiers in Protestant areas and down South is extremely naive. It would be an armed struggle, the target would be much easier and defined. You would aim for the economic hub of the Irish state, blow it to pieces, disrupt infrastructure, so take out railways, water supplies, keep businesses from around the world wanting to invest because of the chaos. 

All very easily achievable. The question is why would Southern people vote for that.

Just a few questions arising from that.
There will be a transition period I would imagine with areas retaining policing structures for a number of years.

Would Unionists/Loyalists support shooting members of a transitional police force made up of policemen from their own areas?

What would be different, logistically speaking, from the last conflict that would allow them to blow the economic hub of Ireland to pieces?

Will they shoot British forces who stop them bringing in the weaponry to sustain this campaign?

It would be an Irish police force and the Irish Army unless fundamental changes happened which many Southerners wouldn't want.

A Little Pony

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only reason the Loyalist/Unionists didn't kill far more was their access to arms and explosives. Something their leaders complained about.


They simply hadn't the same number of munitions or the know how.

While arming a group would be more difficult in this day and age, it would become significantly more difficult for Loyalists/Unionism and it comes down to geography and where they are. Frankly they are hemmed in.
They no longer have the ability to secretly collude, with the police or the army either. Those days are over.
Neither have they the UDR to draw weaponry from. One of the reasons it was disbanded was because it was bleeding weaponry to anyone who wanted it apparently.

Contrast that with how the IRA ran their campaign during the previous conflict. The entire coastline to land arms and explosives, a much much bigger hinterland dotted with support. Significantly easier to maintain and sustain a campaign.

Yes there will probably be tremendous anger in some Unionist/loyalist identities but other than localised rioting and sporadic attacks I cannot see where a 'sustained campaign' capable of striking at the heart of the economy is going to come from.

I really don't get the "hemmed in" argument or the geographical one. Faced with the greatest security on borders, the biggest intelligence operations and armed police on the streets, Islamic terrorists were still able to bomb Paris. How do you intend to keep loyalists "hemmed in"? Restrictions on travel? House arrest? Armed street patrols?

The hemmed in argument is nonsense. With practically no border it would be free flowing and you could easily transport bombs and the like across the border for operations. This idea that Unionists are hemmed in when thousands cross the border daily is nonsensical.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

The hemmed in argument is nonsense. With practically no border it would be free flowing and you could easily transport bombs and the like across the border for operations. This idea that Unionists are hemmed in when thousands cross the border daily is nonsensical.

Thousands always crossed the border. Yet they found difficult if not impossible.

Just basing my assessment on actual fact.

demfad

A Little Pony wrote: »

To think Unionists/Loyalists couldn't start a terror campaign by bombing and shooting Garda and Irish soldiers in Protestant areas and down South is extremely naive. It would be an armed struggle, the target would be much easier and defined. You would aim for the economic hub of the Irish state, blow it to pieces, disrupt infrastructure, so take out railways, water supplies, keep businesses from around the world wanting to invest because of the chaos. 

All very easily achievable. The question is why would Southern people vote for that.

Unionsist/Loyalists didn't do anything of the kind in the South after independence. Usually paramilitary violence is only present with state violence. The people living under the state violence are recruitable by paramilitaries.

It would be highly unlikely that any bias would be exercised against Protestants in the North.

Any campaign would have little support.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

Unionsist/Loyalists didn't do anything of the kind in the South after independence. Usually paramilitary violence is only present with state violence. The people living under the state violence are recruitable by paramilitaries.

It would be highly unlikely that any bias would be exercised against Protestants in the North.

Any campaign would have little support.

This is very confusing.

On the one hand we have republicans saying that paramilitary violence is only present with state violence so the loyalists won't turn to violence.

On the other hand we have republicans darkly muttering about a return to paramilitary violence if a hard Brexit with a hard border is the outcome of the democratic vote in the UK, none of which involves state violence.

Is this a modern day equivalent of the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other except only one side is allowed the armalite?

Anyways, I don't think anyone will engage with this hypocrisy and we are straying well off-topic so I will leave it there with this strange republican position.

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

This is very confusing.

On the one hand we have republicans saying that paramilitary violence is only present with state violence so the loyalists won't turn to violence.

On the other hand we have republicans darkly muttering about a return to paramilitary violence if a hard Brexit with a hard border is the outcome of the democratic vote in the UK, none of which involves state violence.

Is this a modern day equivalent of the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other except only one side is allowed the armalite?

Anyways, I don't think anyone will engage with this hypocrisy and we are straying well off-topic so I will leave it there with this strange republican position.

First of all I am not a republican at least not in the way you mean.
Secondly, I would not agree that a hard border equates to state violence (even though state violence does not need to be violent, and a hard border would almost certainly disproportionately affect nationalists).
The IRA might be able to recruit on the basis of targetted oppression of Nationalists, or return to discrimination. Same for Loyalist groups most likely, which was the point you chose to miss: Discrimination would be highly unlikely in the case of a UI.

A Little Pony

demfad wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

This is very confusing.

On the one hand we have republicans saying that paramilitary violence is only present with state violence so the loyalists won't turn to violence.

On the other hand we have republicans darkly muttering about a return to paramilitary violence if a hard Brexit with a hard border is the outcome of the democratic vote in the UK, none of which involves state violence.

Is this a modern day equivalent of the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other except only one side is allowed the armalite?

Anyways, I don't think anyone will engage with this hypocrisy and we are straying well off-topic so I will leave it there with this strange republican position.

First of all I am not a republican at least not in the way you mean.
Secondly, I would not agree that a hard border equates to state violence (even though state violence does not need to be violent, and a hard border would almost certainly disproportionately affect nationalists).
The IRA might be able to recruit on the basis of targetted oppression of Nationalists, or return to discrimination. Same for Loyalist groups most likely, which was the point you chose to miss: Discrimination would be highly unlikely in the case of a UI.

Based on what?

demfad

A Little Pony wrote: »

Based on what?

Based on the experiences of other Irish Christian minorities in the Republic of Ireland.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You dreamt up a scenario in your head and have called it a Brave New World that awaits us?

Loyalism could have done such things at any time, there were vans in the 70's 80's and 90's too. But they couldn't manage it.
It has gotten harder to do, not easier.

And if Loyalists are going to use a traffic tunnel to escape then I don't think we have to worry much about IQ tbh.

Loyalists we're not "at war" with the Irish state in the way the IRA was with the apparatus of the British state. It was an asymmetric conflict. The loyalists in a hypothetical UI would be bombing Irish targets south of the former border analogous to how the IRA bombed fixed British targets.

You talk about them being hemmed in but in a UI we'd all have the same car registrations and whatnot. A van hired in Belfast would probably even have a D reg! Pick that out in a crowd if you can. Or would there be profiling of anyone with a northern accent?

You don't want to acknowledge that there could be violent opposition to the constitutional position of part of Ireland but we had decades of exactly this in living memory. The fact the loyalist cause would be as futile as the IRA one is irrelevant.

demfad

murphaph wrote: »

You don't want to acknowledge that there could be violent opposition to the constitutional position of part of Ireland but we had decades of exactly this in living memory. The fact the loyalist cause would be as futile as the IRA one is irrelevant.

The violent opposition to the constitutional position originated in state violence against the Catholic minority. That is the crucial dynamic for paramilitary recruitment missing from a prospective UI.
You are not comparing like with like.

A Little Pony

demfad wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Based on what?

Based on the experiences of other Irish Christian minorities in the Republic of Ireland.

All those who ran North as fast as they could because they didn't want to stay. I have high doubts that those of us from the Unionist tradition would have all our institutions protected in law.

demfad

A Little Pony wrote: »

All those who ran North as fast as they could because they didn't want to stay. I have high doubts that those of us from the Unionist tradition would have all our institutions protected in law.

Those in the border areas moved across obviously even if working in the South. British army personnel would move with the job.

There was no big exodus outside border areas and most there moved in the decade before independence. It was more to do with fear of living in the south rather than the actuality of it.

What institutions do you mean? Marching and so on?
Anything non discriminatory would. Unionists can rightly demand not to be discriminated against but this precludes them from discriminating against others. You'd probably get more joy off the Dublin Government than youre getting now TBH. They tend to be over eager to please and you'd probaly get everything and more.

murphaph

demfad wrote: »

The violent opposition to the constitutional position originated in state violence against the Catholic minority. That is the crucial dynamic for paramilitary recruitment missing from a prospective UI.
You are not comparing like with like.

The state mistreatment etc of Catholics in NI ended years before the IRA packed in their campaign. It wasn't about this at the end. It was a straight battle for the unification of Ireland.

A Little Pony

murphaph wrote: »

demfad wrote: »

The violent opposition to the constitutional position originated in state violence against the Catholic minority. That is the crucial dynamic for paramilitary recruitment missing from a prospective UI.
You are not comparing like with like.

The state mistreatment etc of Catholics in NI ended years before the IRA packed in their campaign. It wasn't about this at the end. It was a straight battle for the unification of Ireland.

Very true with documentation from PIRA members saying as such. Like Martin Meehan saying they felt they could drive the British to the sea.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

The violent opposition to the constitutional position originated in state violence against the Catholic minority. That is the crucial dynamic for paramilitary recruitment missing from a prospective UI.
You are not comparing like with like.

It did not originate in state violence against the Catholic minority, and even if it did, the terrorist response was not justified.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

The loyalists in a hypothetical UI would be bombing Irish targets south of the former border

What for?

Reimpose the border? Forget it.
Re-partition the north? Forget it.
Charm the British state back? Forget it.

A Little Pony/Blanch152 have ignored this point because they know rightly that a UI would be irreversible by unionist violence, it's nothing but scaremongering combined with wishful thinking.

What's worse for those above is that Unionist blocking of marriage equality, blocking an ILA, Brexit damaging the north's economy, a hard border (if/when it happens) points the electorate in one direction, a United Ireland.

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Fairy story stuff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thousands always crossed the border. Yet they found difficult if not impossible.

Just basing my assessment on actual fact.

A fairytale? Just like this one......

Once upon a time there was a teenage boy with a grudge and a gun. He headed off down to the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre. Nobody stopped him getting there, nobody spotted his gun. He waved his gun around and the centre was evacuated. Nobody was hurt because he didn't discharge his gun. However, he could easily have caused real terror and injuries to many people.

Just a fairytale, isn't it?

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1101/916710-dublin-blanchardstown/

Oh.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What for?

Reimpose the border? Forget it.
Re-partition the north? Forget it.
Charm the British state back? Forget it.

A Little Pony/Blanch152 have ignored this point because they know rightly that a UI would be irreversible by unionist violence, it's nothing but scaremongering combined with wishful thinking.

What's worse for those above is that Unionist blocking of marriage equality, blocking an ILA, Brexit damaging the north's economy, a hard border (if/when it happens) points the electorate in one direction, a United Ireland.

The IRA campaign was also ultimately futile. Didn't stop them.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

The IRA campaign was also ultimately futile. Didn't stop them.

The PIRA had the goal of forcing the British state out of Ireland which was at least conceivable. The PIRA actually controlled the ground in many border areas where the RUC/BA couldn't leave the barracks unless they were heavily armed.

If anyone thinks Unionists could mount the same sort of campaign outside of their own urban strongholds they're, frankly, clueless.

Also I don't think anyone but a tiny minority on either side want to return to violence.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The PIRA had the goal of forcing the British state out of Ireland which was at least conceivable. The PIRA actually controlled the ground in many border areas where the RUC/BA couldn't leave the barracks unless they were heavily armed.

If anyone thinks Unionists could mount the same sort of campaign outside of their own urban strongholds they're, frankly, clueless.

Also I don't think anyone but a tiny minority on either side want to return to violence.

The terrorist attacks of the last few years have shown that you don't need to control the ground the way that the IRA did - there are other ways.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

The terrorist attacks of the last few years have shown that you don't need to control the ground the way that the IRA did - there are other ways.

What have they gained? Nothing but condemnation. What would unionists achieve by blowing up a car in Dublin after a UI vote? I'll tell you what, nothing. They wouldn't even have a good rationale for doing it and might even end up having the British work with the Irish to suppress them.

Look, when half a million Irish people ended up on the wrong side of the border they didn't suddenly kick off. It took 50 years of misrule before trouble flared up and it wasn't even over the the constitutional question in the beginning.

Also, I'd say just about everything would remain as it is (except maybe a change of currency) with Dublin replacing London as regards sovereignty. There wouldn't be a blitzkrieg of Irish army and Gardai rolling into the north shouting 'right lads, take down them Union flags and put out those bonfires'. Change would be incremental.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

It did not originate in state violence against the Catholic minority, and even if it did, the terrorist response was not justified.

It escalated because of state violence against catholics, in particular the introduction of internment was one of the best IRA recruitment drives.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

It escalated because of state violence against catholics, in particular the introduction of internment was one of the best IRA recruitment drives.

No matter how badly the British are painted, the terrorist response was neither justified nor proportionate.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

No matter how badly the British are painted, the terrorist response was neither justified nor proportionate.

Meaningless comment. Internment was a bad idea that made the situation worse in Northern Ireland and turned ordinary decent people into IRA supporters. The British can carry the can for that one.

I think the Irish Government would have learned from the mistakes of the British in how to deal with Ulster unionists in the event of united Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No matter how badly the British are painted, the terrorist response was neither justified nor proportionate.

Really odd phrase there.

'how badly the British are painted'?

It has the insinuation that people are inventing how bad it got.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What have they gained? Nothing but condemnation. What would unionists achieve by blowing up a car in Dublin after a UI vote? I'll tell you what, nothing. They wouldn't even have a good rationale for doing it and might even end up having the British work with the Irish to suppress them.

Look, when half a million Irish people ended up on the wrong side of the border they didn't suddenly kick off. It took 50 years of misrule before trouble flared up and it wasn't even over the the constitutional question in the beginning.

Also, I'd say just about everything would remain as it is (except maybe a change of currency) with Dublin replacing London as regards sovereignty. There wouldn't be a blitzkrieg of Irish army and Gardai rolling into the north shouting 'right lads, take down them Union flags and put out those bonfires'. Change would be incremental.

Unionists have accepted the fact that when a vote happens for a UI then that is what will happen.

If the 'violent' reaction is going to come from those who protested 'flegs' and parades, then that will be easily contained and localised.

I do not see where it is going to come other than that unless somebody can point to it.

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

Meaningless comment. Internment was a bad idea that made the situation worse in Northern Ireland and turned ordinary decent people into IRA supporters. The British can carry the can for that one.

I think the Irish Government would have learned from the mistakes of the British in how to deal with Ulster unionists in the event of united Ireland.

Internment ended in the mid seventies. The IRA was recruiting people who hadn't even been born by the time it was consigned to the history books.

You may as well blame the famine.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionists have accepted the fact that when a vote happens for a UI then that is what will happen.

If the 'violent' reaction is going to come from those who protested 'flegs' and parades, then that will be easily contained and localised.

I do not see where it is going to come other than that unless somebody can point to it.

Legitimate unionism has accepted that but loyalist terrorists may well not have. After all, nationalists accepted the GFA too but we've had republican killings since.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Legitimate unionism has accepted that but loyalist terrorists may well not have. After all, nationalists accepted the GFA too but we've had republican killings since.

So these 'Loyalist Terrorists' are sitting quietly until there is a vote and will suddenly emerge, organised and capable of destroying the economic hub of the new unified state?

When they quite patently showed during the whole conflict that they didn't have that capability?

Please make sense using facts not *speculative scaremongering, with the greatest of respect.

*I have no doubt that this will be the campaign strategy of those who claim to want a UI but really don't.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Internment ended in the mid seventies. The IRA was recruiting people who hadn't even been born by the time it was consigned to the history books.

You may as well blame the famine.

So, when internment ended, all those people (and their families) just forgot about it and placed their trust in the NI security forces?

I suppose you will try and tell me now that unionists have forgiven the IRA for everything they did and that they will now be voting Sinn Fein!

cameramonkey

murphaph wrote: »

The state mistreatment etc of Catholics in NI ended years before the IRA packed in their campaign. It wasn't about this at the end. It was a straight battle for the unification of Ireland.

The states mistreatment of the nationalists in the north went on right into the 1990's. People were harassed by soldiers and police, had their houses searched and destroyed, were targeted for murder by British run Loyalist gangs, the list is endless. Maybe you have a different meaning for the word mistreatment.

A Little Pony

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

The terrorist attacks of the last few years have shown that you don't need to control the ground the way that the IRA did - there are other ways.

What have they gained? Nothing but condemnation. What would unionists achieve by blowing up a car in Dublin after a UI vote? I'll tell you what, nothing. They wouldn't even have a good rationale for doing it and might even end up having the British work with the Irish to suppress them.  

Look, when half a million Irish people ended up on the wrong side of the border they didn't suddenly kick off. It took 50 years of misrule before trouble flared up and it wasn't even over the the constitutional question in the beginning.

Also, I'd say just about everything would remain as it is (except maybe a change of currency) with Dublin replacing London as regards sovereignty. There wouldn't be a blitzkrieg of Irish army and Gardai rolling into the north shouting 'right lads, take down them Union flags and put out those bonfires'. Change would be incremental.

No point talking about sovereignty as the Irish Republic is in the EU, so that is already out the window. If you believe in self determination then you wouldn't vote to join a state in the EU.

murphaph

cameramonkey wrote: »

The states mistreatment of the nationalists in the north went on right into the 1990's. People were harassed by soldiers and police, had their houses searched and destroyed, were targeted for murder by British run Loyalist gangs, the list is endless. Maybe you have a different meaning for the word mistreatment.

The civil rights issues were put to bed but the IRA continued its campaign which led to more security force activity obviously.

cameramonkey

murphaph wrote: »

The civil rights issues were put to bed but the IRA continued its campaign which led to more security force activity obviously.

The civil rights of nationalists were continuing to be violated. The security situation was bad but the reaction by the UK was really not what one would expect from a civilised government.

To actively encourage Loyalist, to arm Loyalist and to provide them with information and support to target nationalist for murder is a pretty major violation of civil rights. This was part of the UK military strategy right into the 1990's. It is widely documented and has been the subject of a number of court cases.

You are either willfully ignorant or deliberately disingenuous about the abuse of civil rights by the UK government.

James Brown

cameramonkey wrote: »

The civil rights of nationalists were continuing to be violated. The security situation was bad but the reaction by the UK was really not what one would expect from a civilised government.

To actively encourage Loyalist, to arm Loyalist and to provide them with information and support to target nationalist for murder is a pretty major violation of civil rights. This was part of the UK military strategy right into the 1990's. It is widely documented and has been the subject of a number of court cases.

You are either willfully ignorant or deliberately disingenuous about the abuse of civil rights by the UK government.

They feign civility. You just have to look at their track record in Ireland and around the world.
Looking at it from the 'moral' high ground, what's worse; a supposed terrorist group or a supposed civil government carrying out much of the same actions?
Being treated like a second class citizen, (or the Unionist fear of) in your own country by a foreign sometimes immoral and often criminal government, would be bound to cause upset and people to join paramilitary organisations. I think those entrenched on a particular side won't be changed of their opinion, however if people are big enough to accept, in the least, how their side are viewed by the other, we can really begin to move on.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

The civil rights issues were put to bed but the IRA continued its campaign which led to more security force activity obviously.

2010, Cameron apologised. GFA was well before that. I don't believe the IRA were a civil rights body.
Even in 2017, 'put to bed' is a bit of an exaggeration.

PeadarCo

A Little Pony wrote:

No point talking about sovereignty as the Irish Republic is in the EU, so that is already out the window. If you believe in self determination then you wouldn't vote to join a state in the EU.

Ireland is sovereign. The UK is sovereign as Brexit is demonstrating. Ireland could withdraw from the EU if the country wants. Obviously there would be consequences largely negative in my opinion. However the EU won't stop the country leaving.

If you are going down that angle surely you would argue that if you are party of any international agreement where you must concede sovereignty I.e NATO, WTO etc etc it would mean you are not independent. By that logic there is no independent country in the world.

A Little Pony

PeadarCo wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote:

No point talking about sovereignty as the Irish Republic is in the EU, so that is already out the window. If you believe in self determination then you wouldn't vote to join a state in the EU.

Ireland is sovereign. The UK is sovereign as Brexit is demonstrating. Ireland could withdraw from the EU if the country wants. Obviously there would be consequences largely negative in my opinion. However the EU won't stop the country leaving.

If you are going down that angle surely you would argue that if you are party of any international agreement where you must concede sovereignty I.e NATO, WTO etc etc it would mean you are not independent. By that logic there is no independent country in the world.

When you have laws from the EU effecting Ireland or the UK then I disagree with you on the concept of sovereignty. No point in joining together if you are in the EU. Makes absolutely no sense if you want to talk about independence. Bobby Sands would agree me on that, on self determination, a sovereign people with laws created by the Irish for the Irish.

PeadarCo

A Little Pony wrote:

When you have laws from the EU effecting Ireland or the UK then I disagree with you on the concept of sovereignty. No point in joining together if you are in the EU. Makes absolutely no sense if you want to talk about independence. Bobby Sands would agree me on that, on self determination, a sovereign people with laws created by the Irish for the Irish.

The UK is part of NATO. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't that mean the if a country declares war on another NATO member it is obligated to support that member. Does that mean he UK isn't sovereign. By entering the WTO or any other international agreement the UK has given its power to make certain laws.

In terms of the EU making laws of course it can. The EU was given that power by the Irish people in a number of referendums over the last few decades. The EU will continue to have that power until Ireland decides otherwise. Its democracy and sovereignty in action. The only people who are forcing Ireland to accept EU made laws are the Irish people themselves.

Junkyard Tom

Very interesting article in the staunchly Unionist Newsletter.co.uk here.

"The truth is that Ulster has long been viewed as unfinished business by both London and Dublin".

It's a pity politicians in Westminster don't have the balls to tell Unionists that partition was never meant to be a permanent solution and that they should be telling their electorate the same.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Very interesting article in the staunchly Unionist Newsletter.co.uk here.

"The truth is that Ulster has long been viewed as unfinished business by both London and Dublin".

It's a pity politicians in Westminster don't have the balls to tell Unionists that partition was never meant to be a permanent solution and that they should be telling their electorate the same.

There's no point in telling them any such thing. Ireland has been partitioned for a hundred years almost. It became permanent, regardless of the intention.

Now we have the GFA and a southern electorate that is generally enthusiastic about a UI but only under certain preconditions. No bloodshed would be high on most people's list, so that means a high level of acceptance of s UI within the traditionally unionist community.

100% would be nice but isn't achievable but more than half of unionists should be achievable if the product of a UI is actually saleable.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

There's no point in telling them any such thing. Ireland has been partitioned for a hundred years almost. It became permanent, regardless of the intention.

Now we have the GFA and a southern electorate that is generally enthusiastic about a UI but only under certain preconditions. No bloodshed would be high on most people's list, so that means a high level of acceptance of s UI within the traditionally unionist community.

100% would be nice but isn't achievable but more than half of unionists should be achievable if the product of a UI is actually saleable.

The GFA is a process (often forgotten) which was supposed to deliver for nationalists/republicans.
You cannot dictate when they should be happy with that process.
The majority of nationalists at the last election have very clearly voted for the party that has called a halt to the executive because the process is being frustrated.
We have no idea what southern electorate would say in the event of an actual poll.
But you cannot continue to deny that poll, and the road map in the event of that poll being for a UI is set out and agreed.
What do you think would happen if a poll was successful and the ante was suddenly upped to 60% or 70% to accommodate uncomfortable unionists?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The GFA is a process (often forgotten) which was supposed to deliver for nationalists/republicans.
You cannot dictate when they should be happy with that process.
The majority of nationalists at the last election have very clearly voted for the party that has called a halt to the executive because the process is being frustrated.
We have no idea what southern electorate would say in the event of an actual poll.
But you cannot continue to deny that poll, and the road map in the event of that poll being for a UI is set out and agreed.
What do you think would happen if a poll was successful and the ante was suddenly upped to 60% or 70% to accommodate uncomfortable unionists?

The thresholds are laid down in law under the GFA and we'd all have to abide by them. I just don't see the southern electorate forcing a completely unwanted UI on unionists. If unionists themselves were 51% in favour of a UI then I think the southern electorate would also vote in favour (as long as the finances looked ok).

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The thresholds are laid down in law under the GFA and we'd all have to abide by them. I just don't see the southern electorate forcing a completely unwanted UI on unionists. If unionists themselves were 51% in favour of a UI then I think the southern electorate would also vote in favour (as long as the finances looked ok).

Unionists have accepted that a UI is what will happen when a majority decide.

Are you saying the GFA has a built in option for them to change their minds?
You are not making much sense here in fairness.