How long before Irish reunification?

road_high

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm happy enough for the Brits to keep forking out £11 billion a year to keep the lights on in NI.

Anyway we have enough problems here to deal with without having to put up with angry prods who outstayed their welcome by about 400 years.

I’m very close to and good friends with many southern “prods” who are more Nationalistic than I am and one in particular hates the English and makes no bones about it either. Where did the two diverge or were they always a very separate entity? They played a huge role in our independence too from Constance Markieciz to Parnell to present day government

janfebmar

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm happy enough for the Brits to keep forking out £11 billion a year to keep the lights on in NI.

Anyway we have enough problems here to deal with without having to put up with angry prods who outstayed their welcome by about 400 years.

It will be grand, Francie has this plan to resettle overseas unionists and "partionists", in the event of a United Ireland. I'm just wondering if he could expand his plan and bring back the Irish who have settled in America and Australia and Britain over the past 400 years? Maybe the returning Irish could settle on and in the newly vacant farms and properties in Ireland?;)

janfebmar

road_high wrote: »

I’m very close to and good friends with many southern “prods” who are more Nationalistic than I am and one in particular hates the English and makes no bones about it either. Where did the two diverge or were they always a very separate entity? They played a huge role in our independence too from Constance Markieciz to Parnell to present day government

Constance Markievz was a black sheep, and there are no very republican Protestants in our present day government. This is a politician from Monaghan, I think she watches what she says, she knows another protestant politician from her same county (I think it was) and links to her same party was murdered by republicans in the 70s.

FrancieBrady

road_high wrote: »

I’m very close to and good friends with many southern “prods” who are more Nationalistic than I am and one in particular hates the English and makes no bones about it either. Where did the two diverge or were they always a very separate entity? They played a huge role in our independence too from Constance Markieciz to Parnell to present day government

My partner is COI and would have no affinity with the OO brand in NI, she and her wider family members would actually be acutely embarrassed by Orangeism.
There was always a difference between Unionism and Protestantism, there is no intrinsic reason why they would be linked other than it is the primary religion in Britain. And you are correct there were plenty involved in various attempts at independence.

I wouldn't have a clue who would be protestant in our present Government, nor would I care, particularly.

RobMc59

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm happy enough for the Brits to keep forking out £11 billion a year to keep the lights on in NI.

Anyway we have enough problems here to deal with without having to put up with angry prods who outstayed their welcome by about 400 years.

It will be grand, Francie has this plan to resettle overseas unionists and "partionists", in the event of a United Ireland. I'm just wondering if he could expand his plan and bring back the Irish who have settled in America and Australia and Britain over the past 400 years? Maybe the returning Irish could settle on and in the newly vacant farms and properties in Ireland?;)

He might not like that Janfebmar as there are many who would be returning Ulster Scots,which would probably turn his blood cold with dread!

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

He might not like that Janfebmar as there are many who would be returning Ulster Scots,which would probably turn his blood cold with dread!

When you have to partake in jan's invention (outright lies IOW) of 'nasty ethnic cleansing republican boogeymen' both you and jan are just showing yourselves to be beaten dockets.

So carry on with the lies.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you have to partake in jan's invention (outright lies IOW) of 'nasty ethnic cleansing republican boogeymen' both you and jan are just showing yourselves to be beaten dockets.

So carry on with the lies.

See post no. 1620 of this very thread:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they don't want a UI but the majority do, 18% said they 'could not live with it'.

I was interested in what partitionists and Unionists who would abide democratically by a majority decision, would do about those who 'couldn't live with it'.

I proposed making available 'relocation grants' for those people who couldn't afford what Arlene Foster said she would do, which is to 'leave'.

blanch152 wrote: »

Zimbabwe made relocation grants available to white farmers who couldn't live with Rhodesian independence. That worked well.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Not to support Francie's point on relocation (forced or otherwise)....

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So carry on with the lies.

I think it is you that is telling fibs Francie, you did propose relocation grants etc, before the debate got heated and some posts deleted. But post 1620 is still there..

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Post 1620 of this very thread:

If I make available Home Insulation Grants...would you describe that sensationally as 'forcing someone to insulate their home'? Or would it be 'giving someone, who WANTED to insulate their home the ability to do it?

You haven't a leg to stand on lying about that.

You have never proposed any help for those 18% of people who have said 'they couldn't live in a UI'.
You are the agent of 'force'.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I make available Home Insulation Grants....

No comparison. Home Insulation grants are available to all. Resettlement grants to those who "stole the land" remind me of, as someone else said, Zimbabwe making relocation grants available to white farmers who couldn't live with Rhodesian independence. That worked well.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

No comparison. Home Insulation grants are available to all. Resettlement grants to those who "stole the land" remind me of, as someone else said, Zimbabwe making relocation grants available to white farmers who couldn't live with Rhodesian independence. That worked well.

WHERE is the suggestion of 'force' though?

Exactly, it isn't there, it is YOU who has no response for those 18% who say they cannot live in a UI.

It is you who are forcing them to stay. Very simple.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

WHERE is the suggestion of 'force' though?

.

In Rhodesia / Zimbabwe were the farmers forced to leave? Anyway Francie, say an Ulster farmer had "stolen" land worth 100k or 300k or whatever, what difference would your resettlement grant be to him? Would he get the grant because he could not take the land back with him?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

In Rhodesia / Zimbabwe were the farmers forced to leave?

Did 18% of them say they couldn't live there?

You are the one planning to use force to make people stay jan. Because as a typical partitionist you will just 'ignore' them.

You have made that clear.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the one planning to use force to make people stay jan.

I would never use force to make anyone do anything.

Say an Ulster farmer had "stolen" land worth 100k or 300k or whatever, what difference would your resettlement grant be to him? Would he get the grant because he could not take the land back with him?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I would never use force to make anyone do anything.

You have no proposal to help the 18% of people who say they could not live in a UI = you would force them to stay by not helping them or ignoring them.

You hung yourself on that one jan.

Say an Ulster farmer had "stolen" land worth 100k or 300k or whatever, what difference would your resettlement grant be to him? Would he get the grant because he could not take the land back with him?

If he didn't want to leave his land, who is going to force him to leave?

trashcan

janfebmar wrote: »

I would never use force to make anyone do anything.

Say an Ulster farmer had "stolen" land worth 100k or 300k or whatever, what difference would your resettlement grant be to him? Would he get the grant because he could not take the land back with him?

I might be wrong here, so excuse me if I am, but I think you are the only person who has made reference to"stealing" land on this thread. Can't recall Francie mentioning it.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have no proposal to help the 18% of people who say they could not live in a UI = you would force them to stay by not helping them or ignoring them.

If 18% of people said they could not live in a united Ireland, that does not mean 18% of people would like to leave but could not afford the ferry ticket?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If he didn't want to leave his land, who is going to force him to leave?

We are assuming he is one of the 18% of people who cannot live in your new "United Ireland". Again I ask: if an Ulster farmer had "stolen" land worth 100k or 300k or whatever, and he could not live in a United Ireland, what difference would your resettlement grant be to him? Would he get the grant because he could not take the land back with him?

FrancieBrady

trashcan wrote: »

I might be wrong here, so excuse me if I am, but I think you are the only person who has made reference to"stealing" land on this thread. Can't recall Francie mentioning it.

It is part of the elaborate lie she is building up about a simple idea to help people.
I have no interest in forcing anybody to leave nor forcing them to stay.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

If 18% of people said they could not live in a united Ireland, that does not mean 18% of people would like to leave but could not afford the ferry ticket?

what does it mean then? - 'couldn't live in a UI'.

We are assuming he is one of the 18% of people who cannot live in your new "United Ireland". Again I ask: if an Ulster farmer had "stolen" land worth 100k or 300k or whatever, and he could not live in a United Ireland, what difference would your resettlement grant be to him? Would he get the grant because he could not take the land back with him?

What is this 'stolen land' about? Did he steal it from the bank...another farmer?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is this 'stolen land' about?

Some Republicans say they have no right to this land as their fathers before them stole the land ...
Google unionists stole land and see what comes up.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no interest in forcing anybody to leave nor forcing them to stay.

We know that, but 18% of people said they could not live in a United Ireland. In the case of an Ulster farmer who has land worth say 100k or 300k or whatever, ( not an unreasonable assumption: many farms are worth a lot more) and he could not live in a United Ireland, what difference would your resettlement grant be to him? Would he get the grant because he could not take the land back with him?

I'm trying to get an idea of how your resettlement grant scheme would work. What difference would it be compared to say Zimbabwe?

FrancieBrady

Some Republicans say they have no right to this land as their fathers before them stole the land ...
Google unionists stole land and see what comes up.

I did google it...what specifically am I supposed to be looking at?
https://www.google.com/search?q=unionists+stole+land&oq=unionists+stole+land&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

janfebmar wrote: »

We know that, but 18% of people said they could not live in a United Ireland. In the case of an Ulster farmer who has land worth say 100k or 300k or whatever, ( not an unreasonable assumption: many farms are worth a lot more) and he could not live in a United Ireland, what difference would your resettlement grant be to him? Would he get the grant because he could not take the land back with him?

Who in their right mind would decide to leave somewhere and expect to take the land with them? Have you lost the old marbles there janfebmar?

I'm trying to get an idea of how your resettlement grant scheme would work. What difference would it be compared to say Zimbabwe?

I have no idea really about Zimbabwe.

It would work very simply, if somebody hadn't the means to leave, then they can, if they wish. apply for a grant to assist them.

Why would you complicate it? Arlene Foster has already decide to leave(abandon?) her constituents if a UI happens because she has the funds...not everyone would have that choice.
I wouldn't want a UI were anyone was forced to do something they couldn't live with.
You have NO proposals on this, therefore by ignoring it you would be the enforcer.

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

road_high wrote: »

I’m very close to and good friends with many southern “prods” who are more Nationalistic than I am and one in particular hates the English and makes no bones about it either. Where did the two diverge or were they always a very separate entity? They played a huge role in our independence too from Constance Markieciz to Parnell to present day government

My partner is COI and would have no affinity with the OO brand in NI, she and her wider family members would actually be acutely embarrassed by Orangeism.
There was always a difference between Unionism and Protestantism, there is no intrinsic reason why they would be linked other than it is the primary religion in Britain. And you are correct there were plenty involved in various attempts at independence.

I wouldn't have a clue who would be protestant in our present Government, nor would I care, particularly.

Being protestant doesn't mean you're automatically interested in the OO francie-or even if you have a passing interest doesn't mean you agree with anything that is done just to cause upset or reaction.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Being protestant doesn't mean you're automatically interested in the OO francie-or even if you have a passing interest doesn't mean you agree with anything that is done just to cause upset or reaction.

I thought my post made that very clear Rob.

Ash.J.Williams

Ffs

RobMc59

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

Being protestant doesn't mean you're automatically interested in the OO francie-or even if you have a passing interest doesn't mean you agree with anything that is done just to cause upset or reaction.

I thought my post made that very clear Rob.

Apologies,I should have said British protestants.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did google it...what specifically am I supposed to be looking at?

There on the page for example is reference to (and I quote) the "shameful Plantation of Ulster wherein Catholic land was stolen and..."
So we have established at least some Republicans think the land was "stolen". In fact I have heard Republicans saying that on a number of occasions.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who in their right mind would decide to leave somewhere and expect to take the land with them? Have you lost the old marbles there janfebmar?

In new Independent countries if the old Settlers or their descendants leave, of course they cannot take the land with them. In Zimbabwe many left with their suitcases only, having had their farms taken off them.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea really about Zimbabwe.

What? You of all people, with 20,000 plus posts giving out about the British Empire? If you were on Mastermind and had to choose a subject, I bet you would choose "the evils of the British Empire". Yet you never heard of Zimbabwe, which was once (when the British ran it) the bread basket of Africa?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It would work very simply, if somebody hadn't the means to leave, then they can, if they wish. apply for a grant to assist them.

The means to a 2 hour ferry journey? Or even a £40 easyjet flight? So they apply for a grant, for £40 say, to Francies new all Ireland government. In Irish,to the office on Bobby Sands road, Belfast. Will the farmer get full value for the land left behind?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

There on the page for example is reference to (and I quote) the "shameful Plantation of Ulster wherein Catholic land was stolen and..."
So we have established at least some Republicans think the land was "stolen". In fact I have heard Republicans saying that on a number of occasions.

The plantation of Ireland was shameful jan.

Have you a quote from any Republican looking to take back this 'stolen' land?

In new Independent countries if the old Settlers or their descendants leave, of course they cannot take the land with them. In Zimbabwe many left with their suitcases only, having had their farms taken off them.

What has the Zimbabwean situation got to do with a totally voluntary scheme to assist people who say the 'cannot live in a UI'

What? You of all people, with 20,000 plus posts giving out about the British Empire? If you were on Mastermind and had to choose a subject, I bet you would choose "the evils of the British Empire". Yet you never heard of Zimbabwe, which was once (when the British ran it) the bread basket of Africa?

The fact that I see no relevance between the Land Reforms of Mugabe and a scheme to help out people I don't want to force.
There is a very recent folk memory of partition here along the border. Many from both communities were FORCED to live where they didn't want to.
That does not need to happen again.

The means to a 2 hour ferry journey? Or even a £40 easyjet flight? So they apply for a grant, for £40 say, to Francies new all Ireland government. In Irish,to the office on Bobby Sands road, Belfast. Will the farmer get full value for the land left behind?

It's kind of bizarre that you think the cost of moving would only be the cost of a flight.
Property and land has value. I think those people who be in the same 'boat' as Arlene.
If somebody's love of the land is that strong, I doubt they would want to leave.

In fact, I think the DUP will be in for a big shock if farmers come under pressure because of Brexit. The land comes first for any farmer, of any political persuasion, in my experience.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The plantation of Ireland was shameful jan.

There were many things 300 and 400 years ago that were shameful by modern standards, on both sides. The plantation of America and Australia was shameful too.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you a quote from any Republican looking to take back this 'stolen' land?

There was a report done not so long ago, compiled by Mark Daly, a senator with Fianna Fáil. It found some unionists in Northern Ireland fear Zimbabwe-style land seizures by Irish nationalists if the region joins a united Ireland . Quote"Violent land disputes during the partition of Ireland in 1921 and the targeting of land-owning UDR members during the Troubles created a real fear of farm takeovers similar to those seen in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, said Daly. “It’s not theoretical. Anytime somebody says that and it’s not addressed, the fear grows.”

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What has the Zimbabwean situation got to do with a totally voluntary scheme to assist people who say the 'cannot live in a UI'

Back in the day Mugabe had a proposal of a totally voluntary scheme to assist people who said they could not live in a newly independent Zimbabwe either, if it were to happen.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The fact that I see no relevance between the Land Reforms of Mugabe and a scheme to help out people I don't want to force.
There is a very recent folk memory of partition here along the border. Many from both communities were FORCED to live where they didn't want to.
That does not need to happen again.

Indeed some would say the % of protestants along the border is said to have fallen from 17% to 1% during the troubles?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's kind of bizarre that you think the cost of moving would only be the cost of a flight.
Property and land has value. I think those people who be in the same 'boat' as Arlene.
If somebody's love of the land is that strong, I doubt they would want to leave.

They may not want to leave, but as the report found "Farmers and others with Protestant and unionist backgrounds worry that Catholic and nationalist neighbours would claim their land in a cultural, economic and political takeover by Dublin – “the mother of all fears”,"

Anyway your proposal seems to want to encourage people to leave by financial inducements, given than everyone living there now could scratch together the cost of a ferry ticket. Politicians, people with property or land will not get grants to leave. How much do you envisage the grants to be? €100? £1000? £10,000? £100.000? I can see problems with your scheme Francie, obviously it is meant to cleanse the area of Protestants but what if nationalists or catholics want to emigrate, will they be eligible for the "resettlement grant" too? I am sure there may be more than a few non-pretestants who decide they cannot live in a United Ireland.
Especially given fears of , as someone said "a loyalist uprising overwhelming the Irish army and police. “They would have to raise a Catholic gendarmerie, like the B Specials, and then you will have civil war, way beyond the Troubles II and more like Bosnia.”

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

There were many things 300 and 400 years ago that were shameful by modern standards, on both sides. The plantation of America and Australia was shameful too.

Well yeah, that would be right too.

There was a report done not so long ago, compiled by Mark Daly, a senator with Fianna Fáil. It found some unionists in Northern Ireland fear Zimbabwe-style land seizures by Irish nationalists if the region joins a united Ireland . Quote"Violent land disputes during the partition of Ireland in 1921 and the targeting of land-owning UDR members during the Troubles created a real fear of farm takeovers similar to those seen in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, said Daly. “It’s not theoretical. Anytime somebody says that and it’s not addressed, the fear grows.”

So no quotes from 'republicans' talking 'about taking back 'stolen' lands' that you heard?

Why oh why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

Back in the day Mugabe had a proposal of a totally voluntary scheme to assist people who said they could not live in a newly independent Zimbabwe either, if it were to happen.

Can you link to this? Or was it something you heard?

Indeed some would say the % of protestants along the border is said to have fallen from 17% to 1% during the troubles?

There were many reasons why the population declined.

Specifically related to partition - many felt abandoned on the southern side of the border.

They may not want to leave, but as the report found "Farmers and others with Protestant and unionist backgrounds worry that Catholic and nationalist neighbours would claim their land in a cultural, economic and political takeover by Dublin – “the mother of all fears”,"

When people like you are whipping up sensational claims of ethnic cleansing, and inventing fictional republicans (you cannot verify or quote) talking about it, no wonder there are irrational fears.

Anyway your proposal seems to want to encourage people to leave by financial inducements, given than everyone living there now could scratch together the cost of a ferry ticket. Politicians, people with property or land will not get grants to leave. How much do you envisage the grants to be? €100? £1000? £10,000? £100.000? I can see problems with your scheme Francie, obviously it is meant to cleanse the area of Protestants but what if nationalists or catholics want to emigrate, will they be eligible for the "resettlement grant" too? I am sure there may be more than a few non-pretestants who decide they cannot live in a United Ireland.
Especially given fears of , as someone said "a loyalist uprising overwhelming the Irish army and police. “They would have to raise a Catholic gendarmerie, like the B Specials, and then you will have civil war, way beyond the Troubles II and more like Bosnia.”

I can't make head nor tail of a point there. 'this one said' ...I heard republicans say this....'as someone said'.

WTF???

mattser

There's obviously limited, if none at all, moderation on this thread.
But for anyone with a passing interest, (vote), in a future poll on a UI, it should be a compulsory read.
The bitterness would drive the undecided scurrying from unification.

janfebmar

Just saw this post, no 3455, from this afternoon, when I was doing other things Francie said:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't have a clue who would be protestant in our present Government, nor would I care, particularly.

I find that difficult to believe Francie.

Most of what you say is true I assume and I respect your right to have your own opinions. I cannot help but seem to remember you saying you were from Co. Monaghan I think. Your local Minister is Heather Humphries, since 2014. She often speaks on matters to do with religion, for example on the fine gael website page on her, the first news headline was Minister Heather Humphreys speaking at the Launch of "Protestant and Irish:" etc etc. According to the wiki page on her, her father is a member of the Orange Order.

As you have a 24/7 interest in politics (fair enough), I personally do not find it credible you did not know your local TD (since 2011 I think) and minister was a protestant. Indeed she is from what some would dub as the only protestant village in the Republic. According to reports, "It has 100 inhabitants, no GAA club, no pub, and four churches, all of various Protestant denominations, including a branch of the late Ian Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church. " Maybe you just forgot?

I know of her, and I respect her and her values and opinions, even though I am not in her constituency. You being close to the border, I thought you of all people would know the basic background of your local Minister in our Government? What else do you say that we can ...errr...perhaps take with a pinch of salt?

mattser wrote: »

There's obviously limited, if none at all, moderation on this thread.
.

I think of Francie and I being like 2 people debating at a dinner party - it can get a little heated at times, we seldom agree, but there is no real need for moderation I think. It is interesting to see the perspectives of others.