How long before Irish reunification?

youzack

The working tax payers of the republic of Ireland wont want to take on the bankrupt North, and the sectarian problems, i would expect the vote down south to be shockingly high against reunification.
the fact is Northern Ireland is not wanted by either the UK or Ireland, but both pretend they want it

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Waiting for figures before making a statement in no way makes me gullible, Francie. I had my opinion that Blanch was not correct with his statement, but I'm not infallible, I'm always open to hearing new information and having my mind changed. I asked for the data, I'm perfectly capable of analysing data myself, I have done it on a daily basis for many years. What I don't do is presume the data is wrong before I see it.

I accept your bona fides Fionn and enjoy your posts, but I know for a fact that blanch's goal is to always make it the fault of the Irish, however 'subtly' he thinks he is dressing his bias up.

Just a friendly warning is all I intended.

ltd440

20-30 years

youzack wrote: »

The working tax payers of the republic of Ireland wont want to take on the bankrupt North, and the sectarian problems, i would expect the vote down south to be shockingly high against reunification.
the fact is Northern Ireland is not wanted by either the UK or Ireland, but both pretend they want it

Maybe a vote could be close but imo I doubt it, but I couldn't see NI voting for it way too many fresh memories up there of violence, it might get traction here but not up north

youzack

ltd440 wrote: »

Maybe a vote could be close but imo I doubt it, but I couldn't see NI voting for it way too many fresh memories up there of violence, it might get traction here but not up north

I believe the South would be a even bigger No vote.
People in the Republic already pay very high Taxes, reunification would cost Billions, folk wont wont to pay the price, then you have the prospect of loyalist terrorism, its a NO vote from me, and i suspect the majority as well

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Waiting for figures before making a statement in no way makes me gullible, Francie. I had my opinion that Blanch was not correct with his statement, but I'm not infallible, I'm always open to hearing new information and having my mind changed. I asked for the data, I'm perfectly capable of analysing data myself, I have done it on a daily basis for many years. What I don't do is presume the data is wrong before I see it.

Francie doesn’t like people thinking outside of the box which they are meant to be in due to which house they were born in. When ones thinking is based much on rewritten history and twisted facts, one is understandably threatened by honest examination of an issue.
Fair play to you Fionn

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie doesn’t like people thinking outside of the box which they are meant to be in due to which house they were born in. When ones thinking is based much on rewritten history and twisted facts, one is understandably threatened by honest examination of an issue.
Fair play to you Fionn

Well, let's see what happens when blanch presents his treatise/thesis.

What is your own view downcow...did you think the Civil Rights Movement was justified?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, let's see what happens when blanch presents his treatise/thesis.

What is your own view downcow...did you think the Civil Rights Movement was justified?

Your pira campaign was not a campaign for civil rights Francie, it was an armed struggle - many would say sectarian - for a United Ireland.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Your pira campaign was not a campaign for civil rights Francie, it was an armed struggle - many would say sectarian - for a United Ireland.

.Jan, you haven't answered this question, did you think the Civil Rights Movement was justified?

Are you afraid to answer it for some reason?

janfebmar

Already answered Francie, post no 3350.

janfebmar wrote: »

I believe civil rights could and should have been improved for poor Protestants as well as poor Catholics. Yes, of course there was some discrimination against Catholics and I believe in peaceful protest. However there were poor Protestants as well as poor Catholics and Catholics were not MOPEs.

Your pira campaign was not for civil rights Francie, it was an armed struggle - many would say sectarian - for a United Ireland.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Already answered Francie, post no 3350.



Your pira campaign was not for civil rights Francie, it was an armed struggle - many would say sectarian - for a United Ireland.

That is not an answer to the question I asked, which is very clear.

Did you think the Civil Rights Movement was justified?

janfebmar

Are you claiming the pira campaign was part of the campaign for civil rights ?

I have no problem with peaceful protest, never had.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Are you claiming the pira campaign was part of the campaign for civil rights ?

Nope

I have no problem with peaceful protest, never had.

Did you think the Civil Rights Movement was justified?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nope

So you accept your pira campaign had nothing to do about civil rights and was just a struggle to "get the British out of Ireland"?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

So you accept your pira campaign had nothing to do about civil rights and was just a struggle to "get the British out of Ireland"?

Nope.


Can you pay attention to the capital letters used here:

Did you think the Civil Rights Movement was justified?

If you want me to be more specific about what I am asking you...try this:

Did you think the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) campaign was jusitified?

careless sherpa

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nope.


Can you pay attention to the capital letters used here:



If you want me to be more specific about what I am asking you...try this:

Did you think the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) campaign was jusitified?

Seems to be a reluctance to answer for some mysterious reason

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nope.

So your pira armed struggle was for what, if it had nothing to do with civil rights or getting the British out?

FrancieBrady

careless sherpa wrote: »

Seems to be a reluctance to answer for some mysterious reason

Blanch said he 'always agreed with the Civil Rights Movement' but has so far failed to answer whether that means he agreed with their 6 demands.

Janfebmar is ducking and diving and deflecting...as usual.

downcow has so far not addressed the question.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, let's see what happens when blanch presents his treatise/thesis.

What is your own view downcow...did you think the Civil Rights Movement was justified?

Certainly initially. But I take some issue with you Implying that it was only catholics that were struggling.
Of course when the violence began it lost credibility. I often think if they had joined up with those in the south who were being discriminated against it might have prevented it becoming sectarianised. Would you agree

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Blanch said he 'always agreed with the Civil Rights Movement' but has so far failed to answer whether that means he agreed with their 6 demands.

Janfebmar is ducking and diving and deflecting...as usual.

downcow has so far not addressed the question.

I said peaceful campaigning for civil rights is and was always justified. You have not answered the question about what your pira campaign was for? All you could say was Nope, Nope.

downcow

Yes Francie I think it is you that is ducking a fairly clear question.
Was the pira campaign in you view about civil rights?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Certainly initially. But I take some issue with you Implying that it was only catholics that were struggling.

I didn't imply any such thing...it was blanch who rushed on with stats about catholic well being.
I recognise that there were protestants involved with NICRA at a high level.

Of course when the violence began it lost credibility.

When they were beaten off the streets by the RUC...it lost credibility? Why?

I often think if they had joined up with those in the south who were being discriminated against it might have prevented it becoming sectarianised. Would you agree

NICRA had a lot of support in the south. Politically and among the population, look what happened when the British shot 14 of them in cold blood.

The Civil Rights Movement was never sectarian. That is a downright lie.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Yes Francie I think it is you that is ducking a fairly clear question.
Was the pira campaign in you view about civil rights?

Absolutely it was. If you can ignore who the deal (the GFA) was negotiated with, then go right ahead.

The GFA enshrines human and civil rights for all in Northern Ireland.

I believe the violence was wrong from the start, but there is no denying what the IRA were fighting for, even if I was against violence.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely it was.

The why did you say in post 3373 the pira campaign was not part of the campaign for civil rights? Maybe you realise blowing people up and shooting them in the back in a failed effort to get a United Ireland was not protecting their civil rights?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I said peaceful campaigning for civil rights is and was always justified. .

Sigh...I hope downcow you can see the 'ducking and diving' going on here.


I didn't ask you if you thought 'campaigning was justified' jan, I asked you specifically

Did you think the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) campaign was justified?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The why did you say in post 3373 the pira campaign was not part of the campaign for civil rights? Maybe you realise blowing people up and shooting them in the back in a failed effort to get a United Ireland was not protecting their civil rights?

I said jan, it was not a part of the Civil Rights Movement.

You do know why people use capital letter, yeh?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said jan, it was not a part of the Civil Rights Movement.

That is not what we asked you.

The original aims of the NICRA were justified, and poor protestants were just as badly off / had the same democratic voice as poor Catholics. The NICRA became sectarian though

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

That is not what we asked you.

The original aims of the NICRA were justified,h

Good to know now that you supported this. These were it's stated aims.

1. "One man, one vote" which would allow all people over the age of 18 to vote in local council elections and remove the multiple votes held by business owners – known as the "business vote".
2. An end to gerrymandering electoral wards to produce an artificial unionist majority.
3. Prevention of discrimination in the allocation of government jobs.
4. Prevention of discrimination in the allocation of council housing.
5. The removal of the Special Powers Act.
6. The disbandment of the almost entirely Protestant Ulster Special Constabulary (B Specials).

janfebmar

I said the original aims, which were an improvement in conditions for working class Catholics and Protestants.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I said the original aims, which were an improvement in conditions for working class Catholics and Protestants.

If you supported NICRA then you 'supported' those demands. It's quite simple.

Those demands are enshrined in NICRA's constitution btw. Which existed from the time they were set up.

The constitution of NICRA was based on that of the British National Council for Civil Liberties.[38][40] NICRA's name was expressed in English only. The constitution emphasised the association's character as non-party and non-denominational, and as a body which would make representations on the broad issues of civil liberties and would also take up individual cases of discrimination and ill-treatment and stated NICRA's aims as "to assist in the maintenance of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, propaganda and assembly".[41] NICRA's aims were:[42]

1. To defend the basic freedoms of all citizens.
2. To protect the rights of the individual.
3. To highlight all possible abuses of power.
4. To demand guarantees for freedom of speech, assembly and association.
5. To inform the public of their lawful rights.
It had six main demands:[38]

1. "One man, one vote" which would allow all people over the age of 18 to vote in local council elections and remove the multiple votes held by business owners – known as the "business vote".
2. An end to gerrymandering electoral wards to produce an artificial unionist majority.
3. Prevention of discrimination in the allocation of government jobs.
4. Prevention of discrimination in the allocation of council housing.
5. The removal of the Special Powers Act.
6. The disbandment of the almost entirely Protestant Ulster Special Constabulary (B Specials).

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you supported NICRA then you 'supported' those demands. It's quite simple.

Those demands are enshrined in NICRA's constitution btw. Which existed from the time they were set up.

The 5 original objectives in 1967 were different to that.