How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Apologies to Francie in that I didn't mean to imply that he was deliberately proposing the resettlement grants in order to create the conditions for the men in balaclavas.

However, I am in no doubt that such knocks on the door will be an inevitable result of such a proposal, whether that be farms in Fermanagh or houses in West Belfast. If Francie thinks further about what he is proposing, he should be able to see the inherent dangers in such a proposal and the atmosphere it will create of a community under threat.

So how do you propose helping the 18% who say they 'cannot live in a UI'?

Remember you don't have to go that far back in our history to find people from both communities, forced to stay were they didn't want to be and those who felt abandoned.

We have the clear evidence of what that resentment bred.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So how do you propose helping the 18% who say they 'cannot live in a UI'?

Remember you don't have to go that far back in our history to find people from both communities, forced to stay were they didn't want to be and those who felt abandoned.

We have the clear evidence of what that resentment bred.

For a start, we shouldn't be doing anything just based on an opinion poll.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

TBF anyone so inclined would do that with or without such an offer. Didn't they use to burn people out?

Turning 'helping people' into some sort of scheme to displace a population that is no longer a threat to your goal is just a pathetic attempt to stereotype republicans.
As you say, there doesn't have to be a grant in place to start that.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

I can see this going much the same way as the travelling community.

Post UI you’d have all unionism given special ethnic status enshrined in the constitution, to identify as British or whatever they’d like. The majority would just get on with it,
a small cohort of the community would refuse to integrate or engage. And they’d isolate themselves and life would just move on without them.
Knowing our government every effort would be made and no expense spared to intergrate smoothly and all sorts of programs set up to help both communities all that.

There will be no knocks on doors official or otherwise. To suggest as much is baseles fear mongering on vast scale blanch.

Constitutionally it raises an odd question to the UK. would they allow those unionists that want to move there, move there. They currently have a massive problem of racism owing to other former colonies and current commonwealth subjects being unwelcome in the uk

It’s going to be interesting. But none of the threats you suggest will happen

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Ps the Brits bribed the scots to relocate here in the first place.
All that’s being suggested is thered be funding and support for any unionists who couldn’t live in UI.
It’d be Eu and UK funds


No men in ballies involved.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

For a start, we shouldn't be doing anything just based on an opinion poll.

So like janfebmar you just deflect away from offering a solution, thereby showing you would force those people who will certainly exist, to stay.

A knock on the door = bad force
Ignore them = good force.

:rolleyes:

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

For a start, we shouldn't be doing anything just based on an opinion poll.

Every social reform referendum we’ve had has been preceded by many many polls. Thus leading to true referenda being called.

Sort of how it works

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is your point here. The IRA existed in opposition to the British presence here, there was never any ambiguity about them.
You only have to look at how they armed themselves (by raiding BA military bases in Ireland) to see why that happened. :rolleyes:

They armed themselves in lots of other ways too eg from overseas, etc That is not the point. And we all know the Republican paramilitaries existed in opposition to the United Kingdom / protestant / unionist presence here. Why do you refuse to condemn them ? And do not deflect again about how you condemn all violence, because we know from before you think it was everyone else who used violence, and Republican extremists did not because they were military heroes or whatever words you choose to use.

Dog Man Star

My god, how far we have fallen from the hard worked Good Friday agreement. Thanks to those who chose to leave the European single trading market for made-up racist reasons, we may now face a return to terrorism on the Irish border.

My father in law is British, he voted to leave the EU, because he was "sick of seeing muslims in Bury".

My sister in law is British, she voted to leave the EU because she was fired from Primark because her "face didn't fit". Truth was, she had taken 35 sick days in three months.

Morons and cretins voted for Brexit, coaxed by social media, led by lying newspapers. Unless this changes, we will see destructive decisions over and over.

Trump has given every waste of space a voice, backed up by him, an unintelligent, ill-mannered cretin just like me.

FrancieBrady

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Every social reform referendum we’ve had has been preceded by many many polls. Thus leading to true referenda being called.

Sort of how it works

blanch is just deflecting from the question, because he knows that if he accepts that these people will exist and he has no proposal to help them he is 'forcing' people to stay just as profoundly as the 'knock on the door' would 'force' them to leave.

janfebmar

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

All that’s being suggested is thered be funding and support for any unionists who couldn’t live in UI.
It’d be Eu and UK funds

No men in ballies involved.

Not like last time so? It would save an awful lot of paperwork and grant money if they could just be encouraged to go, especially for example former security force members and their families. And would "partitionists " get a grant to move too, sure it would be very handy to get a grant of a few hundred or a thousand euro if you were thinking of emigrating, like tens of thousands have over the past few years.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Not like last time so? It would save an awful lot of paperwork and grant money if they could just be encouraged to go, especially for example former security force members and their families. And would "partitionists " get a grant to move too, sure it would be very handy to get a grant of a few hundred or a thousand euro if you were thinking of emigrating, like tens of thousands have over the past few years.

So you want the men in balaclavas?

You’ve been accusing francie of this over countless posts when he never said it now you’re calling for it?

Youre sick

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

, sure it would be very handy to get a grant of a few hundred or a thousand euro if you were thinking of emigrating, like tens of thousands have over the past few years.

So you

-abused francie for months for suggesting relocation grants for unionists in a UI they say they can’t live in

And

- are now saying tens of thousands of people over the past few years have been given these relocation grants


Can you please. Just once. Realize what hypocritical nonsense you post and please provide evidence of these tens of thousands of grants allocated for relocation

You’re an antagonist and once again I’m not even sure you’re real but by all mean continue.

janfebmar

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So you

-abused francie for months for suggesting relocation grants for unionists in a UI they say they can’t live in

And

- are now saying tens of thousands of people over the past few years have been given these relocation grants


Can you please. Just once. Realize what hypocritical nonsense you post and please provide evidence of these tens of thousands of grants allocated for relocation

You’re an antagonist and once again I’m not even sure you’re real but by all mean continue.

Lol. I said tens of thousands of people have emigrated over the past number of years, I did not say they got grants to do so. Of course they did not.

janfebmar

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So you want the men in balaclavas?

No of course not. I have always condemned the paramilitaries on both sides. The extremist Republicans on this site have not.

s7ryf3925pivug

blergh says no

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

No of course not. I have always condemned the paramilitaries on both sides. The extremist Republicans on this site have not.

You were asked to condemn the one that re-introduced the gun to Irish politics and armed his men with 25,000 rifles and you made excuses for him and the UVF.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were asked to condemn the one that re-introduced the gun to Irish politics and armed his men with 25,000 rifles and you made excuses for him and the UVF.

You are going back over 100 years. I condemned all paramilitaries who shot and bombed. Why do you not condemn all paramilitaries who shot and bombed?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You are going back over 100 years. I condemned all paramilitaries who shot and bombed. Why do you not condemn all paramilitaries who shot and bombed?

It was his actions that led to all subsequent problems...yet you make excuses for him.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was his actions that led to all subsequent problems...yet you make excuses for him.

There were plenty of actions before the events of the early 20th century too.

Anyway, you have not answered the question. Why do you not condemn all paramilitaries who shot and bombed?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

There were plenty of actions before the events of the early 20th century too.

Deflect and avoid.

Anyway, you have not answered the question. Why do you not condemn all paramilitaries who shot and bombed?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111116473&postcount=3659

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111116473&postcount=3659

Stop deflecting. Why do you refuse to condemn them ? And do not deflect again about how you condemn all violence, because we know from before you think it was everyone else who used violence, and Republican extremists did not because they were military heroes or whatever words you choose to use.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Stop deflecting. Why do you refuse to condemn them ? And do not deflect again about how you condemn all violence, because we know from before you think it was everyone else who used violence, and Republican extremists did not because they were military heroes or whatever words you choose to use.

What are you talking about. Why don't you take a break from posting nonsense and find this mysterious post of mine that says the IRA didn't use violence.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you talking about..

You have been asked by a number of people to condemn the paramilitaries on both sides and you refused to do so.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You have been asked by a number of people to condemn the paramilitaries on both sides and you refused to do so.

I have condemned all the violence and said it was all wrong on multiple occasions.
You when asked about a man who raised a militia that survived to modern times, and armed them with 25,000 illegal weapons have still to condemn him.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have condemned all the violence and said it was all wrong on multiple occasions.

But you said before pIRA actions were not violence. You did say some actions like Kingsmill were "wrong". When are you going to condemn the pIRA? I condemn the paramilitaries who shot and bombed on both sides.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

But you said before pIRA actions were not violence. You did say some actions like Kingsmill were "wrong". When are you going to condemn the pIRA? I condemn the paramilitaries who shot and bombed on both sides.

I have no idea what comment you are ascribing to me. Did it ever dawn on you that it may be something you misrepesented/lied about and now can't remember what the lie was?

And you haven't even condemned the first paramilitary of partition...so take a hike on your further lie that you 'condemn all'.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea what comment you are ascribing to me. Did it ever dawn on you that it may be something you misrepesented/lied about and now can't remember what the lie was?

And you haven't even condemned the first paramilitary of partition...so take a hike on your further lie that you 'condemn all'.

LOL. I said the Larne gun smuggling was wrong and should not have happened. It was well over 100 years ago. Now, when are you going to condemn the paramilitaries that operated in living memory?

Odhinn

janfebmar wrote: »

LOL. I said the Larne gun smuggling was wrong and should not have happened. It was well over 100 years ago. Now, when are you going to condemn the paramilitaries that operated in living memory?

Why should he? Civil rights marches were beaten off the streets for years before the armed struggle. As a result the campaign was justified.

janfebmar

Odhinn wrote: »

Why should he? Civil rights marches were beaten off the streets for years before the armed struggle..

And there were plenty of people killed by republicans too before the civil rights marches, so there are two sides to every story.