How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Now you are just fantasising Runaway.
Take a wee look again where the UN recognised international border is - and then tell the Scots that Scotland is not a country (but do it from a distance)

Have a look at where the 'border' is moving to thanks to Arlene and Co.

downcow

Runaways wrote: »

The orange order founded in 1796 in portadown

Think you’ll find they’re a far older organization in NI than the GAA which was founded in 1884


We all know who ‘started this’ downcow


You don’t even know the basics pal

The point was who started the need to remove anything that may cause offence from the workplace. The latest is the guy was employed by the nio bit got £10,000 because he had to walk past a portrait of the queen

OMM 0000

Maybe you guys will find this interesting.

I had a chat with a few colleagues today (Japanese) about a united Ireland.

Obviously they don't know much of the topic, but when I talked about the violence up there and how it could spill into the south if a united Ireland happened, they all thought I was insane to even consider the idea of supporting a united Ireland.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Maybe you guys will find this interesting.

I had a chat with a few colleagues today (Japanese) about a united Ireland.

Obviously they don't know much of the topic, but when I talked about the violence up there and how it could spill into the south if a united Ireland happened, they all thought I was insane to even consider the idea of supporting a united Ireland.

Did you explain that it would be really unlikely for violence to happen at any real scale and that half the population of the North would have an affinity and would wish to be part of a UI, all things being equal?

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Did you explain that it would be really unlikely for violence to happen at any real scale and that half the population of the North would have an affinity and would wish to be part of a UI, all things being equal?

what about the half that don't?

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

what about the half that don't?

99% of them are not interested nor have the stomach for a violent campaign.

Look to all other instances of impending apocalypses...AIA, GFA, Flegs, Marches etc etc.

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

99% of them are not interested nor have the stomach for a violent campaign.

Look to all other instances of impending apocalypses...AIA, GFA, Flegs, Marches etc etc.

100% hopefully, but yes.

Runaways

10-15 years

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Maybe you guys will find this interesting.

I had a chat with a few colleagues today (Japanese) about a united Ireland.

Obviously they don't know much of the topic, but when I talked about the violence up there and how it could spill into the south if a united Ireland happened, they all thought I was insane to even consider the idea of supporting a united Ireland.

Who would be carrying out this violence?
Loyalists have no capacity or ability to mount any kind of violence outside a punishment beating.

The Ira? Ehhh they want the Brits out. a UI is sort of their mission.


So who ?

Well wait.

OMM 0000

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Did you explain that it would be really unlikely for violence to happen at any real scale and that half the population of the North would have an affinity and would wish to be part of a UI, all things being equal?

Yes I explained there could be (not definitely, just could be) some bombs every now and then in the south, and they found it utterly horrifying.

Runaways wrote: »

Who would be carrying out this violence?
Loyalists have no capacity or ability to mount any kind of violence outside a punishment beating.

The Ira? Ehhh they want the Brits out. a UI is sort of their mission.


So who ?

Well wait.

Pretty sure you answered it yourself!

In Japan where violence is very abnormal, "punishment beatings" are still unimaginable.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

bubblypop wrote: »

what about the half that don't?

That half already have what they want.

Runaways

10-15 years

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes I explained there could be (not definitely, just could be) some bombs every now and then in the south, and they found it utterly horrifying.




Pretty sure you answered it yourself!

In Japan where violence is very abnormal, "punishment beatings" are still unimaginable.

You didn’t read what I said. There is no group in the loyalist community with the ability to carry out any bombing or violence. They’re little more than street thugs and no longer have the training backing information or supplies from the British that they enjoyed all the way through the troubles.. They’re also completely infiltrated by British intelligence now so they’d be shut down before they could even start.

You need to stop watching action movies I reckon.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes I explained there could be (not definitely, just could be) some bombs every now and then in the south

What would their demands be would you think?

Sinbad_NI

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What would their demands be would you think?

I don't think logic will help you with this question.

OMM 0000

Runaways wrote: »

You didn’t read what I said. There is no group in the loyalist community with the ability to carry out any bombing or violence. They’re little more than street thugs and no longer have the training backing information or supplies from the British that they enjoyed all the way through the troubles.. They’re also completely infiltrated by British intelligence now so they’d be shut down before they could even start.

You need to stop watching action movies I reckon.

Holy crap, grow some social skills.

You said this:

Loyalists have no capacity or ability to mount any kind of violence outside a punishment beating.

I quoted you on it, now you're claiming I didn't read what you said and are trying to change the sentence to this:

There is no group in the loyalist community with the ability to carry out any bombing or violence.

You then insult me.

You don't have the ability to talk like a normal person, so welcome to my ignore list.

OMM 0000

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What would their demands be would you think?

Extremist be extreming, so who knows, perhaps their own country as they believe they're not "Irish".

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

OMM 0000 wrote: »

perhaps their own country

Where? Can you show us on the map?

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Where? Can you show us on the map?

I am not sure what this post is telling us?

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Where? Can you show us on the map?

I think that he meant that one of the demands' of Loyalists would be their own [wee] country, ie. and independent statelet perhaps.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Where? Can you show us on the map?

There's a white bit in the middle there that looks empty? Yea or Neagh?

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

I am not sure what this post is telling us?

It's telling us the blue areas would, in a general sense, be where people would support a United Ireland. It's telling us that you could forget about Derry and Belfast as a capital for a new Protestant state for a Protestant people.

What I'm demonstrating is the hopelessness of the Unionist cause. Bar a war of ethnic cleansing with a huge transfer of population there isn't even a case for a Protestant/Unionist homeland in Ireland.

Yeah_Right

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Not unusual at all up here. No logo'd sports clothing would be allowed in any work place, be it GAA, football, rugby, whatever.

Everyone far too easily offended.

Not just up there. I worked in a multi-national call centre in Dublin that had banned GAA and soccer jerseys. Apparently there had been some problems in the past with people wearing them and getting into heated arguments and even fights. No issue with rugby tops though. Must be a better class of fan

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's telling us the blue areas would, in a general sense, be where people would support a United Ireland. It's telling us that you could forget about Derry and Belfast as a capital for a new Protestant state for a Protestant people.

What I'm demonstrating is the hopelessness of the Unionist cause. Bar a war of ethnic cleansing with a huge transfer of population there isn't even a case for a Protestant/Unionist homeland in Ireland.

Just like Unionists had to be saved from themselves over Brexit by Dublin, they would have to be saved from themselves trying to re-partition the island.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Where? Can you show us on the map?

Ah yes, the Sinn Fein sectarian view of the world where every Protestant is a unionist, and every Catholic wants a united Ireland.

I thought we had gone beyond that after that Sinn Fein election candidate in Belfast had to disown his poster.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah yes, the Sinn Fein sectarian view of the world where every Protestant is a unionist, and every Catholic wants a united Ireland.

I thought we had gone beyond that after that Sinn Fein election candidate in Belfast had to disown his poster.

I can absolutely guarantee you that no Catholics will be joining downcow's separatist project. Unless they are sadists.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah yes, the Sinn Fein sectarian view of the world where every Protestant is a unionist, and every Catholic wants a united Ireland.

You, of all people, shouldn't cry about sectarianism in the northeast of Ireland as the place was created with the express purpose of making a Protestant/Unionist ethno-statelet viable.

For you to even pretend you aspire to consistency on the matter of sectarianism in Ireland you'd be questioning the legitimacy of 'Northern Ireland' which is about as likely as you coming out in support of a United Ireland.

Lord Fairlord

15-20 years

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Most things are 10% at least more expensive. General cost of living things, food etc.
So effectively you'll have that much less free cash every week/month/whatever. No thanks.

Rent in ROI is another story. Holy moly. Didn't really listen to people complaining in here but those numbers are insane.

Countries that are more expensive are generally wealthier. Ireland is a wealthy country. The cost of living is more expensive in the South but the wages are much better. One must also take into account the dependence of NI on the public sector; partition just continues the unviable state via life support. Without partition we'd have much less duplication.

An argument from Unionists in the 1950s against a UI was that the North was wealthier than the South. The argument from some today seems to be that the North is better off separate because it's less economically successful.

Sinbad_NI

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

Countries that are more expensive are generally wealthier. Ireland is a wealthy country. The cost of living is more expensive in the South but the wages are much better. One must also take into account the dependence of NI on the public sector; partition just continues the unviable state via life support. Without partition we'd have much less duplication.

An argument from Unionists in the 1950s against a UI was that the North was wealthier than the South. The argument from some today seems to be that the North is better off separate because it's less economically successful.

I'm not arguing about legitimacy. GFA had sorted that question for us all.

I'm talking about how it could affect everyone, myself included, when there's a decent chunk more outgoings than today.
Wages in the private sector will not follow overnight.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can absolutely guarantee you that no Catholics will be joining downcow's separatist project. Unless they are sadists.

Careful now. Tom will be asking are you speaking for all catholics

downcow

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

Countries that are more expensive are generally wealthier. Ireland is a wealthy country. The cost of living is more expensive in the South but the wages are much better. One must also take into account the dependence of NI on the public sector; partition just continues the unviable state via life support. Without partition we'd have much less duplication.

An argument from Unionists in the 1950s against a UI was that the North was wealthier than the South. The argument from some today seems to be that the North is better off separate because it's less economically successful.

....and vice versa from the republicans lol. Lesson is that the decision by the extreme s won’t be based on economics. Centre ground could be more interesting. Certainly polls currently would suggest centre ground feel they are better off in uk.
You see your other problem Tom/Francie/etc is that you need an amazing amount of blue water because the old ‘devil you know’ will be the next factor you have to address should you ever be able to make any case for UI. But that’s down the road a few generations.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

the old ‘devil you know’ will be the next factor you have to address

It's out of the hands of people of unionist heritage now anyway.

should you ever be able to make any case for UI

The DUP in the north and the headbangers over in Whitehall are doing that job for us at the moment.