How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

No, I'm saying put a new agreement in place which allows an independent Northern Ireland.

What convinces you that the artificially constructed state of NI could 'govern' itself.

It has not been able to do it properly since partition and now requires an internationally binding agreement between two sovereign governments just to function for it's people.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

This is low and it's undeserved. Disgraceful comment, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Jan has a penchant for exploiting victims to make her 'points'.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What convinces you that the artificially constructed state of NI could 'govern' itself.

It has not been able to do it properly since partition and now requires an internationally binding agreement between two sovereign governments just to function for it's people.

We have been through this before several times now, and many examples of artificially constructed states governing themselves have been given.

Similarly there are a large number of states smaller than NI in existence.

Think we had a whole thread on it before.

blanch152

_blaaz wrote: »

By wanting to tear up the gfa (this is what will be requires for your plan).....you find yourself in bed politically with saoradh and the DUP

Could be done by addendum to recognise the reality of the Northern Irish identity.

An independent Northern Ireland, member of the EU, but with the Queen as Head of State, would tick a lot of boxes.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jan has a penchant for exploiting victims to make her 'points'.

Not at all: I was making the point that of the deaths since the GFA, and with the exception of the Omagh bomb and the odd attack on security forces, most of the deaths were caused by feuding on both sides, by both sides against their own communities.

blanch152

janfebmar wrote: »

Not at all: I was making the point that of the deaths since the GFA, and with the exception of the Omagh bomb and the odd attack on security forces, most of the deaths were caused by feuding on both sides, by both sides against their own communities.

Very similar to the Kinahan and Hutch type feuding of common criminals.

The high horse brigade

20-30 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Could be done by addendum to recognise the reality of the Northern Irish identity.

An independent Northern Ireland, member of the EU, but with the Queen as Head of State, would tick a lot of boxes.

You mean a backstop? Because it's nearly that idea is what's causing lots of contention

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Could be done by addendum to recognise the reality of the Northern Irish identity.

An independent Northern Ireland, member of the EU, but with the Queen as Head of State, would tick a lot of boxes.

Who is the political representative (or even emerging as) of this identity?

And what convinces you specifically that NI could govern itself successfully?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Not at all: I was making the point that of the deaths since the GFA, and with the exception of the Omagh bomb and the odd attack on security forces, most of the deaths were caused by feuding on both sides, by both sides against their own communities.

Another attempt to kill PSNI officers with a viable device last night. Yeh...don't worry it is just internal feuding.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is the political representative (or even emerging as) of this identity?

And what convinces you specifically that NI could govern itself successfully?

Why does it need a political representative? Sure, isn’t that what makes it popular among younger people - no link to the dinosaurs in the DUP and SF.

_blaaz

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Could be done by addendum to recognise the reality of the Northern Irish identity.

It cant without signing off on un (since lodged there) and referendum here....the gfa isnt a self ameding treaty like lisbon

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Another attempt to kill PSNI officers with a viable device last night. Yeh...don't worry it is just internal feuding.

Wrong again Francie, if you read it carefully you will see I wrote "with the exception of the Omagh bomb and the odd attack on security forces".
The IRA in all its guises were and are a threat to peace, be it the new IRA, the real IRA or who ever.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Why does it need a political representative? Sure, isn’t that what makes it popular among younger people - no link to the dinosaurs in the DUP and SF.

Ah. Just wishful thinking that you are going to find something to stave off the horror of republicans getting a UI.
You have tried everything to get some anti-UI traction going. Might as well give and Independent NI a go.

_blaaz

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah. Just wishful thinking that you are going to find something to stave off the horror of republicans getting a UI.
You have tried everything to get some anti-UI traction going. Might as well give and Independent NI a go.

Wouldve taught the fact the north was effectively an independant country 1922-1969 would embarass anyone off suggesting it again,given how that ended


Kinda how you dont hear anyone propose laissez-faire approach to food supply/security since it ended horrifically here (i must admit,not being upto speed on brexiteers proposal on this)

blanch152

_blaaz wrote: »

It cant without signing off on un (since lodged there) and referendum here....the gfa isnt a self ameding treaty like lisbon

Why would it need a referendum?

The two parties to any Treaty can always change it. There is nothing in the GFA that says it can’t be amended if the two governments decide to do so. The only reason a referendum would be needed was if there was a constitutional change in the South. Legally, there is no barrier to changing any treaty.

Imreoir2

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Could be done by addendum to recognise the reality of the Northern Irish identity.

An independent Northern Ireland, member of the EU, but with the Queen as Head of State, would tick a lot of boxes.

Except for the reality that it is nowhere near economically viable and lacks any kind of popular support anywhere. As far as I can tell there are only a few hardline unionists who like it as a plan B "Anything but Ireland" option if the union fails.

Imreoir2

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it need a referendum?

The two parties to any Treaty can always change it. There is nothing in the GFA that says it can’t be amended if the two governments decide to do so. The only reason a referendum would be needed was if there was a constitutional change in the South. Legally, there is no barrier to changing any treaty.

It took a referendum to pass, it takes a referendum to amend, thought that much would be obvious.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Except for the reality that it is nowhere near economically viable and lacks any kind of popular support anywhere. As far as I can tell there are only a few hardline unionists who like it as a plan B "Anything but Ireland" option if the union fails.

+ partitionists, who will basically take anything that isn't a UI too. They never cared to begin with, what happened to those in NI.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It took a referendum to pass, it takes a referendum to amend, thought that much would be obvious.

Not to me, perhaps you would explain the legal niceties.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It took a referendum to pass, it takes a referendum to amend, thought that much would be obvious.

I agree with blanch, it could be ammended between the 2 governments but without a single political rep arguing for it, it would basically be proposed as 'somebody down the pub/or somebody on an anonymous internet site was asking for an Independent NI'.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

+ partitionists, who will basically take anything that isn't a UI too. They never cared to begin with, what happened to those in NI.

At least some "partionists" as you call them would be of the opinion they cared most about what happened to those in N.I, or certainly that they cared more than
united irelanders.

Imreoir2

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

At least some "partionists" as you call them would be of the opinion they cared most about what happened to those in N.I, or certainly that they cared more than
united irelanders.

They care enough to ignore their democratic process it seems.

janfebmar

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They care enough to ignore their democratic process it seems.

Not if they vote in elections and voted in referendums etc, I imagine most people care about the democratic process all right.

Water John

For those making predictions, I remember Dev saying it would happen in his lifetime. But change when it comes, usually comes fast.
The Sec of State for NI is charged with, holding a Referendum if he/she has good reason to believe a majority would be in favour of change, under the GFA.

Imreoir2

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Not if they vote in elections and voted in referendums etc, I imagine most people care about the democratic process all right.

My point was that those partitionists who claim to care about NI seemingly do not care about their democratic process if they vote in favour of a UI.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

My point was that those partitionists who claim to care about NI seemingly do not care about their democratic process if they vote in favour of a UI.

They wish to change the 'majority' required to 85% or higher...add an option no political voice has asked for, for starters.
And most partitionists here don't care what the majority vote for if it 'costs' them, nor do they care that people are still dying.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

+ partitionists, who will basically take anything that isn't a UI too. They never cared to begin with, what happened to those in NI.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And most partitionists here don't care what the majority vote for if it 'costs' them, nor do they care that people are still dying.

In your opinion.
You are attempting to demonise "partionists" the same as you demonise everyone who does not agree with you.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

In your opinion.
You are attempting to demonise "partionists" the same as you demonise everyone who does not agree with you.

I disagree with partitionists politically, if you feel 'demonised' that says more about you and your insecurities than me.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

Just for all our, 'original thinking' buddies, the idea of an independent North isn't a new idea, it's one that's been floating about for decades, largely ignored because it pleases nobody and has almost zero support.

It seems like a logical solution, which crumbles apart under the most basic of scrutiny. It's the political equivalent of a mother telling her kids that if they cant make up their minds, NEITHER of them are getting any sweets. Ultimately it's fair, but at the end of the day, nobody wants it.

ILoveYourVibes

I would say 5 generations from now. But it would be dependent on whether it was in the North's best interests or not.

There is a new generation in the north for whom national identity is not that important. They are happy to be called British or Irish.


I think in 5 generations there will be no nationalists or unionists, just people who will vote however is best for the country. If and only if at that time, a united Ireland does serve that, I think that generation would have no issue.

If however in 5 or 7 or 10 generations it's actually NOT in NI's best interests to have a UI I don't think anything would persuade them towards it.