How long before Irish reunification?

Fionn1952

15-20 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This obviously doesn't excuse the murders committed by the IRA, .

and yet here you are (again), with another post attempting (and failing) to do just that.

Methinks this lady doth protest too much.

Except at no point have I said anything of the sort.

If you can find a single post in my history which defends any IRA murder, go ahead.

You presented an obviously agenda laden statistic, pushing the usual, 'Brits Good, Republicans Bad' spiel, I presented something a bit more thorough, while making it very clear that the murders of Catholics by british state forces and loyalist paramilitaries in no way excuses murders committed by the IRA.

I don't know how much more clear I can make that.

janfebmar

Bambi wrote: »

Remind me why she wound up in the Divis flats? Run out of her home by loyalists for being a Taig.

People moved homes on both sides but which side murdered her?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Or you could have moved to a Republican area of Belfast like Jean McColville did, and no matter how close she aligned herself with Republicanism / bringing her kids up Catholics and republicans, was always still still just a prod to them.

Victim Bingo has started I see. That's two on the list mentioned now.

And spelt wrong again. Jesus!

facehugger99

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If you can find a single post in my history which defends any IRA murder, go ahead.

Bit late for you to try pulling the impartial contributor card - your posts are way less subtle than you seem to be giving yourself credit for - a sly attempt to infer a moral equivalence between the actions of State forces and terrorist murders, that's straight out of the SF playbook.

Come on fella - you're an apologist for IRA actions in the same mound as Francie, with the same 'I don't condone it but I understand it' morally-bankrupt spiel.

Be man enough to admit it.

.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Bit late for you to try pulling the impartial contributor card - your posts are way less subtle than you seem to be giving yourself credit for - a sly attempt to infer a moral equivalence between the actions of State forces and terrorist murders, that's straight out of the SF playbook.

Come on fella - you're an apologist for IRA actions in the same mound as Francie, with the same 'I don't condone it but I understand it' morally-bankrupt spiel.

Be man enough to admit it.

.

With respect to northern Ireland, there was no difference morally between any of them. It was all wrong from the get go. And wasn't put morally right until equality was achieved and the sectarian police force which had essentially disgraced itself, was reformed and renamed.
Nothing 'subtle' about my position on that.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If you can find a single post in my history which defends any IRA murder, go ahead.

Bit late for you to try pulling the impartial contributor card - your posts are way less subtle than you seem to be giving yourself credit for - a sly attempt to infer a moral equivalence between the actions of State forces and terrorist murders, that's straight out of the SF playbook.

Come on fella - you're an apologist for IRA actions in the same mound as Francie, with the same 'I don't condone it but I understand it' morally-bankrupt spiel.

Be man enough to admit it.

.

Impartial contributor? A handful of posts ago, I quite clearly said I have nationalist/republican aspirations. Hardly a claim of impartiality.

At many points during the Troubles, there absolutely WAS a moral equivalence between the actions of state forces and the IRA, I haven't slyly implied that, it's a blatant statement. The shooting of innocents during Bloody Sunday was as morally wrong as the bombing of innocents by the IRA in my hometown.

Where you're going wrong is your inference that because the British forces committed some atrocities in the North, that this somehow diminishes the atrocities committed by others. This is a total non-sequitur. As I've REPEATEDLY said, two wrongs don't make a right.

If you can find a single post of mine defending the IRA, be my guest.

mattser

You people are the very reason unification hasn't a chance.

Across all NI threads the same bull**** by the same people, all day every day, ad nauseam.

Get a life.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

'Bloke with no interest in NI comes into NI related thread to moan that people commenting in said thread have an interest in NI'

FrancieBrady

mattser wrote: »

You people are the very reason unification hasn't a chance.

Across all NI threads the same bull**** by the same people, all day every day, ad nauseam.

Get a life.

You won't get this partitionist recrimination conversation when a UI gets discussed. That is over.

And besides, partitionists don't have a political voice and any politician engaging in the bitter stuff you read here will be shunned as divisive and unhelpful.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Y
And besides, partitionists don't have a political voice

The beauty of a referendum is that we don't need one.

The taxpayers of Ireland will make the choice ourselves on whether we want to piss away €10bn a year funding your grubby landgrab.

Neither Leo's bullsh;t nor Mary Lou's bluster will cut any ice.

The GFA empowers the peoples of the ROI with the ultimate veto

Not that it will ever even come to that.

mattser

Fionn1952 wrote: »

'Bloke with no interest in NI comes into NI related thread to moan that people commenting in said thread have an interest in NI'

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You won't get this partitionist recrimination conversation when a UI gets discussed. That is over.

And besides, partitionists don't have a political voice and any politician engaging in the bitter stuff you read here will be shunned as divisive and unhelpful.

Just to prove my point, more bull**** from some of the main contributors.
United Ireland ?? :D:D
( Ban gratefully accepted, if any mod exists on these bull**** threads )

Fionn1952

15-20 years

mattser wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

'Bloke with no interest in NI comes into NI related thread to moan that people commenting in said thread have an interest in NI'

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You won't get this partitionist recrimination conversation when a UI gets discussed. That is over.

And besides, partitionists don't have a political voice and any politician engaging in the bitter stuff you read here will be shunned as divisive and unhelpful.

Just to prove my point, more bull**** from some of the main contributors.
United Ireland ?? :D:D
( Ban gratefully accepted, if any mod exists on these bull**** threads )

Ah I just wanted an excuse to use the Old Man Yells At Cloud. I've had under 200 posts in a year and a half, chief - I'm hardly a main contributor to anything.

Want to know what's worse, Mattser, I'm already living down here, and Francie isn't from the North as far as I know! You can avoid a united Ireland, but there's no escape!

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The beauty of a referendum is that we don't need one.

The taxpayers of Ireland will make the choice ourselves on whether we want to piss away €10bn a year funding your grubby landgrab.

Neither Leo's bullsh;t nor Mary Lou's bluster will cut any ice.

The GFA empowers the peoples of the ROI with the ultimate veto

Not that it will ever even come to that.

Does that kind of non backed up stuff help you relax?

You may not have noticed but the game is changing and it is changing fast. A UI looks like it could become the only way to rescue us in the south from tremendous cost and damage, and save the EU some major headaches. Not to mention allowing the British to go on their merry way without complications.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

He is correct though, Francie - continued partition doesn't NEED a major political party supporting it.

Political ambivalence towards unification is more likely than directly speaking in favour of continued partition. It alienates a lot fewer people to keep your mouth shut on a divisive issue than to take a position on a polarising topic.

I suspect when the time comes for a referendum, that on a party level, all the major ones will be more or less campaigning either in favour, or not campaigning at all. That shouldn't give you the impression that everyone down here is in support either.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

He is correct though, Francie - continued partition doesn't NEED a major political party supporting it.

Political ambivalence towards unification is more likely than directly speaking in favour of continued partition. It alienates a lot fewer people to keep your mouth shut on a divisive issue than to take a position on a polarising topic.

I suspect when the time comes for a referendum, that on a party level, all the major ones will be more or less campaigning either in favour, or not campaigning at all. That shouldn't give you the impression that everyone down here is in support either.

You think there will be ambivalence among the major parties? I doubt it very much.
The desire to be on the right side of history will be as strong as it was after the Civil War and look how long it took for that spat to die down among out political class.

An anti-UI vote of any magnitude will have to be led politically, and I don't see that 'voice' emerging. Maybe Peter Casey might see a few votes in it.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

He is correct though, Francie - continued partition doesn't NEED a major political party supporting it.

Political ambivalence towards unification is more likely than directly speaking in favour of continued partition. It alienates a lot fewer people to keep your mouth shut on a divisive issue than to take a position on a polarising topic.

I suspect when the time comes for a referendum, that on a party level, all the major ones will be more or less campaigning either in favour, or not campaigning at all. That shouldn't give you the impression that everyone down here is in support either.

You think there will be ambivalence among the major parties? I doubt it very much.
The desire to be on the right side of history will be as strong as it was after the Civil War and look how long it took for that spat to die down among out political class.

An anti-UI vote of any magnitude will have to be led politically, and I don't see that 'voice' emerging. Maybe Peter Casey might see a few votes in it.

On a party level, I suspect all the major parties will have some degree of pro-unity policy. On an individual level, I suspect there will be a great degree of variation on the level of on-the-ground campaigning done.

As the default position, it doesn't REALLY need a great degree of political leadership. Ireland is pretty comfy right now, the 'f**k you Jack, I'm alright' attitude is far from uncommon. The status quo is a pretty good scenario for most people. People need motivation to vote for change, not the other way round.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The status quo is a pretty good scenario for most people. People need motivation to vote for change, not the other way round.

And contagion from a No Deal Brexit is the game changer. Partition exposed yet again as the rock around our neck.

The conversation has started regardless and moderate unionism is showing signs of wanting to be involved in it too. Which is good.

The I'm alright Jack mentality will always be present, I happen to believe isn't very loud with respect to a UI.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The status quo is a pretty good scenario for most people. People need motivation to vote for change, not the other way round.

And contagion from a No Deal Brexit is the game changer. Partition exposed yet again as the rock around our neck.

The conversation has started regardless and moderate unionism is showing signs of wanting to be involved in it too. Which is good.

The I'm alright Jack mentality will always be present, I happen to believe isn't very loud with respect to a UI.

You're talking about possibilities as eventualities though, Francie. A no-deal Brexit isn't guaranteed, even if it is, who knows how long that will last.

In the event of a no deal Brexit that doesnt get resolved, if Ireland begins to suffer, there is also a significant chance that the North could be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as an anchor round the neck of recovery.

There certainly hasnt been enough economic modelling on the matter to confidently call unification a panacea for all the woes of Brexit either.

It's all well and good hand waving these objections aside with regards to me. I'm in favour of unification and open to discussing them. Others would find your answers quite lacking in substance, disregard it and quietly tick No in the referendum.

I think Facehugger's fantasy statistics are useless, but there are always going to be a significant cohort who like things the way they are, and unless you can point to tangible benefits to these people, with EVIDENCE, and hard evidence at that, they're just not going to be interested in romantic reasoning.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You're talking about possibilities as eventualities though, Francie. A no-deal Brexit isn't guaranteed, even if it is, who knows how long that will last.

In the event of a no deal Brexit that doesnt get resolved, if Ireland begins to suffer, there is also a significant chance that the North could be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as an anchor round the neck of recovery.

There certainly hasnt been enough economic modelling on the matter to confidently call unification a panacea for all the woes of Brexit either.

It's all well and good hand waving these objections aside with regards to me. I'm in favour of unification and open to discussing them. Others would find your answers quite lacking in substance, disregard it and quietly tick No in the referendum.

I think Facehugger's fantasy statistics are useless, but there are always going to be a significant cohort who like things the way they are, and unless you can point to tangible benefits to these people, with EVIDENCE, and hard evidence at that, they're just not going to be interested in romantic reasoning.

Any recovery for Ireland is going to be better achieved as one jurisdiction with no border.

And my point is: that this cohort will not be in the reckoning. If it was a sizable opinion it would have found a political voice. And it hasn't.
A UI is a constitutional aspiration of this state for a reason. The majority want it to happen.
For that reason I think there HAS to be a major political party advocating against it. Letters to the paper or commenting on websites won't cut it.

In saying that, I agree the modelling needs much more involvement from the stakeholders.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An anti-UI vote of any magnitude will have to be led politically, and I don't see that 'voice' emerging.

Someone needs a history lesson.

Did the vote that defeated the Treaty of Nice in 2001 need to be led politically Francie?

What about Lisbon referendum in 2008?

Plenty of referendums have been defeated over the years despite the overwhelming majority of political representatives rowing in behind them.

The Irish electorate aren't the obedient little Shepple you imagine them to be.

You think we'll roll over and have our pockets fleeced to the tune of €10bn a year because Varadkar wants a photo-op?

You'll be in for a rude-awakening.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any recovery for Ireland is going to be better achieved as one jurisdiction with no border.

Any recovery for Ireland is going to be better achieved without having to fork out €10bn a year keeping the Nordies afloat.

blinding

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Any recovery for Ireland is going to be better achieved without having to fork out €10bn a year keeping the Nordies afloat.

Isn’t Leo threatening Boris with Irish Re-Unification . He must have found a piggy bank on one of his Photo Shoots !;)

blinding

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Someone needs a history lesson.

Did the vote that defeated the Treaty of Nice in 2001 need to be led politically Francie?

What about Lisbon referendum in 2008?

Plenty of referendums have been defeated over the years despite the overwhelming majority of political representatives rowing in behind them.

The Irish electorate aren't the obedient little Shepple you imagine them to be.

You think we'll roll over and have our pockets fleeced to the tune of €10bn a year because Varadkar wants a photo-op?

You'll be in for a rude-awakening.

Pretty obedient to the Eu when the Eu Commands:eek:

downcow

blinding wrote: »

Isn’t Leo threatening Boris with Irish Re-Unification . He must have found a piggy bank on one of his Photo Shoots !;)

Leo is clearly rattled. Boris is doing what may should have done 2 years ago.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Someone needs a history lesson.

Did the vote that defeated the Treaty of Nice in 2001 need to be led politically Francie?

What about Lisbon referendum in 2008?

Plenty of referendums have been defeated over the years despite the overwhelming majority of political representatives rowing in behind them.

The Irish electorate aren't the obedient little Shepple you imagine them to be.

You think we'll roll over and have our pockets fleeced to the tune of €10bn a year because Varadkar wants a photo-op?

You'll be in for a rude-awakening.

The Treaty Of Nice:

On the No Side, the principal campaigns were those of the Green Party, Sinn Féin, Anthony Coughlan's National Platform, Justin Barrett's No to Nice campaign, and Roger Cole's Peace and Neutrality Alliance.

The Catholic Church was also against it on abortion grounds.

Lisbon Treaty.
Labour were split on it, Sinn Fein and The Socialist Party were against as were Declan Ganley and Patricia McKenna and the Green Party was also split.
The Catholic Church was also against with the Vatican directly intervening the second time around.
Were you not born around this time or just willfully forgetting?

An anti-UI political voice has yet to emerge.

The 10bn pound scare figure again though...very good! :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Leo is clearly rattled. Boris is doing what may should have done 2 years ago.

Yeh...the backstop looks in real jeopardy there doesn't it? :rolleyes:

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh...the backstop looks in real jeopardy there doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Watch this space francie. Boris is posititong himself to negotiate a time limited backstop as the compromise. Which we all know is not a backstop.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Watch this space francie. Boris is posititong himself to negotiate a time limited backstop as the compromise. Which we all know is not a backstop.

So the EU will put 3 years of the same position behind them because Boris 'has spoken'?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the EU will put 3 years of the same position behind them because Boris 'has spoken'?

Poor Francie - simultaneously crying crocodile tears on how bad a hard-Brexit will be for the Island while whipping yourself in a froth over the thoughts of it happening.


Along comes big shaggy Boris to put the wind up you.


Delightful to watch.

blinding

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

Leo is clearly rattled. Boris is doing what may should have done 2 years ago.

Instead the Re-Mainers have used every ruse in the book to distance the time since the referendum in an attempt to subvert Democracy .

We only need to look at Hong Kong and Russia to see how important Democracy is but tis nah bother to Eu-Phile anti-democrats to play fast and loose with Democracy .

The British will not have their Democracy taken away from them . They are not that foolish .