How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

jh79

droidman123 wrote: »

Try that the other way around

Point is of course the military would leave if the IRA were gone.

droidman123

jh79 wrote: »

Point is of course the military would leave if the IRA were gone.

The point is the i.r.a. would never of been there if the british wernt there

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Everyone gained from the GFA except the IRA and to make it even worse for disgruntled republicans, SF continue to take the Queen's shilling!

:D:D:D Have you ignored the FACT that the British have been so snookered by the GFA they don't even have autonomy to do what they want as the UK?
Have you ignored the big deal the DUP made of the border and where it was going to be and how the GFA defeated them abjectly on that one too?
They were meeting in the upstairs rooms of Belfast bars trying to hatch some opposition to stop them being, in their own words, 'separated from the mainland and hooked up to the South'.

The decrepit and pathetic attempts of little Britons like yourself Rob to fashion a win out of something that is clearly a defeat for Britishness is something else.

The people of NI pay 'schillings' to the queen (you keep her and all the attendant weirdos of the aristocracy too btw)...why would they not be entitled to be paid for their work?
Are you that much of a supplicant and hat doffer that you don't realise that monarchy is paid for by you...the little person? The queen never earned a bob of her own money in her life!

jh79

droidman123 wrote: »

The point is the i.r.a. would never of been there if the british wernt there

And they are still there but the IRA are gone.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

And they are still there but the IRA are gone.

Ah, it's 'the IRA are gone' hour, is it?

droidman123

RobMc59 wrote: »

Everyone gained from the GFA except the IRA and to make it even worse for disgruntled republicans, SF continue to take the Queen's shilling!

As a british tax payer its actually YOUR shilling sf are taking,how does that make you feel?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah, it's 'the IRA are gone' hour, is it?

Inactive, whatever floats your boat. Looking forward to their British civil service pension i'd imagine.

Wonder if Gerry's Irish TD pension is better than a British MLA pension?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you address the question that downcow ran a mile from?

How is it, if the British were happy with the GFA that it was the British side that hated it most and railed against it from day one? From the UUP at times to the belligerence of the DUP who have never accepted it to elements of the Tory party like Michael Gove. Kicking and screaming is the analogy most suited to their reactions...yet now you are trying to play it as win to taunt people. (taunting which is not achieving it's aim by the way, having a great laugh at it here, actually )

I answered it. Release of ira sectarian killers was very difficult for the unionists and many nationalists

Hamsterchops

droidman123 wrote: »

The point is the i.r.a. would never of been there if the british wernt there

... the Brits landed in Ulster four hundred years ago, and we landed in Scotland, the Normans took over England, then they came here, Cromwell, William of Orange, Unity-Seperation, 1922, Independence, 1948, the Troubles, but Norther Ireland wished to stay British and remain as part of the UK.

The IRA was born to try and seperate this island from next door, and to stamp out any semblance of Britishness on this island.

The Brits (all one million of them) remain, the PIRA has gone and NI is still an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Can't see it voting to leave (the UK) anytime soon.
Looks like post Brexit they'll have the best of both worlds up North, with one foot still in the EU

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Inactive, whatever floats your boat. Looking forward to their British civil service pension i'd imagine.

Wonder if Gerry's Irish TD pension is better than a British MLA pension?

Oops you nearly slipped up there jh...imagine losing the abiliry to selectively pronounce the IRA still exists. Now they are 'not gone' thet are 'inactive'.

I think you have exposed the ridiculousness of the selective debating of belligerent unionists/loyalists and partitionists.

I have no problem accepting that the IRA gave up on removing the British by force and decided on a democratic path.
Why getting a living from that is a bad thing only you can answer if you stop licking your bitter chops for a minute or two

jh79

Googled the pensions for MLA's , it's awful! Someone should tell the Unionists how much we pay in the Republic! Might sway them!

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I answered it. Release of ira sectarian killers was very difficult for the unionists and many nationalists

You were railing against any concessions long before the prisoner releases came into it.

Look at the Anglo Irish Agreement. Trimble...who got a Nobel Peace prize (thus devaluing it even more than it had been) said of that 'no little violenxe might be required to oppose it'.
You echoed that sentiment with your.. 'I cannot garuntee to remain peaceful' bout of statesmanship, if the GFA was brought to one of it's possible conclusions.
You are, as usual; all over the shop on this.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oops you nearly slipped up there jh...imagine losing the abiliry to selectively pronounce the IRA still exists. Now they are 'not gone' thet are 'inactive'.

I think you have exposed the ridiculousness of the selective debating of belligerent unionists/loyalists and partitionists.

I have no problem accepting that the IRA gave up on removing the British by force and decided on a democratic path.
Why getting a living from that is a bad thing only you can answer if you stop licking your bitter chops for a minute or two

Nothing to be bitter about , happy for SF to maintain the status quo indefinitely. Happy for a UI if someone funds it. Even if it goes ahead without funding i'm sure i'll survive the financial fall out.

The IRA surrendering and making a living while hoping for democracy to bring about a UI was the best possible outcome but why sugar coat it. They surrendered and NI is far better place now because of it.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Nothing to be bitter about , happy for SF to maintain the status quo indefinitely. Happy for a UI if someone funds it. Even if it goes ahead without funding i'm sure i'll survive the financial fall out.

The IRA surrendering and making a living while hoping for democracy to bring about a UI was the best possible outcome but why sugar coat it. They surrendered and NI is far better place now because of it.

Because nobody surrendered. Those who wanted to maintain a bigoted sectarian statelet lost though, quite demonstratively.

You just wish to demean a section of people who were satisfied with the terms of an agreement while pretending furiously that are STILL those who oppose that agreement and who will remain a threat to it if the likes of SF did not exist.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Googled the pensions for MLA's , it's awful! Someone should tell the Unionists how much we pay in the Republic! Might sway them!

Quoting myself again here in case i get accused of having a 2nd account again btw.

TD in the Republic gets over a 100k and Finian McGrath is due a pension of 52k pa and a lump sum!

MLA's only get 50k and on average a 8k pa as a pension.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because nobody surrendered. Those who wanted to maintain a bigoted sectarian statelet lost though, quite demonstratively.

You just wish to demean a section of people who were satisfied with the terms of an agreement while pretending furiously that are STILL those who oppose that agreement and who will remain a threat to it if the likes of SF did not exist.

I'm demeaning an organisation, a sectarian terrorist one at than.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I'm demeaning an organisation, a sectarian terrorist one at than.

And selecting them as losers/surrender monkeys over and above the sovereign government and the sectarian party that oversaw the territory until it inevitably went up in flames is how you demean the people and communities from where they came and still reside in.
I never supported the IRA but I don't fool myself about what happened either.

What is wrong with certain Irish people who engage in this kind of deferential fearsome debate would be a good subject of study for some physcology student/post grad.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And selecting them as losers/surrender monkeys over and above the sovereign government and the sectarian party that oversaw the territory until it inevitably went up in flames is how you demean the people and communities from where they came and still reside in.
I never supported the IRA but I don't fool myself about what happened either.

What is wrong with certain Irish people who engage in this kind of deferential fearsome debate would be a good subject of study for some physcology student/post grad.

But you are fooling yourself by claiming a stalemate. The British couldn't just hand back NI, the Republic couldn't just take it back either.

The only possible outcome was a GFA style agreement and an IRA surrender. The British achieved that. Gerry knew it too and convinced or guided the IRA into surrender depending on wether he was a member or not.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But you are fooling yourself by claiming a stalemate. The British couldn't just hand back NI, the Republic couldn't just take it back either.

The only possible outcome was a GFA style agreement and an IRA surrender. The British achieved that. Gerry knew it too and convinced or guided the IRA into surrender depending on wether he was a member or not.

Self serving deferential hat doffing as blatant as that post as I have rarely seen The combined forces of Britain and Unionism fought concession for decades until the British seen what the next stage was going to be, the campaign being fought in their back yard and economic heartland.
The IRA warned them and they responded. The level of 'infiltration' mattered not a bit when it came down to it.
The tragic fact is that the British only ever responded to force in Ireland Carson and Craig knew that just as the IRA did.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Self serving deferential hat doffing as blatant as that post as I have rarely seen The combined forces of Britain and Unionism fought concession for decades until the British seen what the next stage was going to be, the campaign being fought in their back yard and economic heartland.
The IRA warned them and they responded. The level of 'infiltration' mattered not a bit when it came down to it.
The tragic fact is that the British only ever responded to force in Ireland Carson and Craig knew that just as the IRA did.

Francie,the IRA aren't even a spent force,they just gave up and Britain ,Ireland and the rest of the sane people breathed a sigh of relief.
Now,twenty odd years later the realisation that they've been outfoxed has finally dawned on them and it hurts.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Francie,the IRA aren't even a spent force,they just gave up and Britain ,Ireland and the rest of the sane people breathed a sigh of relief.
Now,twenty odd years later the realisation that they've been outfoxed has finally dawned on them and it hurts.

Rob...when oh when are you gonna deal wirh the FACT that the GFA is so weighted towards pushing the partioned parts of this island inexorably together (as republicans and belligerent unionism knew it would) that it has outfoxed two British PMs right before our eyes.
How blind do you have to be?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Self serving deferential hat doffing as blatant as that post as I have rarely seen The combined forces of Britain and Unionism fought concession for decades until the British seen what the next stage was going to be, the campaign being fought in their back yard and economic heartland.
The IRA warned them and they responded. The level of 'infiltration' mattered not a bit when it came down to it.
The tragic fact is that the British only ever responded to force in Ireland Carson and Craig knew that just as the IRA did.

How is it that bad doffing ? The IRA surrender without achieving a United Ireland is a fact.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

How is it that bad doffing ? The IRA surrender without achieving a United Ireland is a fact.

Describe this 'surrender'?

You can't because it didn't happwn except in feverish minds of the worst kind of Irish person and delusional British people.

A fully armed group negotiating an agreement with a government that was previously trying to militarily defeat it is not a surrender.

What you continue to reveal is a hat doffing servile mentality that swallows what colonists and imperialists want you to believe.

It is evident in all colonies...the inability to shake off the inferiority complex your colonists gave you intentionally. It takes several generations for it to be shook off.

Try thinking for yourself.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Describe this 'surrender'?

You can't because it didn't happwn except in feverish minds of the worst kind of Irish person and delusional British people.

A fully armed group negotiating an agreement with a government that was previously trying to militarily defeat it is not a surrender.

What you continue to reveal is a hat doffing servile mentality that swallows what colonists and imperialists want you to believe.

It is evident in all colonies...the inability to shake off the inferiority complex your colonists gave you intentionally. It takes several generations for it to be shook off.

Try thinking for yourself.

Why are you attempting to glorify the IRA?-Its very strange considering you constantly claim you disagree with their past methods.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The reasonable view is that both sides realised that a stalemate had been reached.
When the British ended the Unionist veto (by the even more hated than the GFA) with the Anglo Irish Agreement the way was clear for a negotiated settlement that will lead to a UI if that is what a majority want.
Adams insistence on a 'British intention to withdraw and a statement of no selfish or strategic interest' being included in the GFA are what ensured that the Hume - Adams talks succeeded where Hume had failed before.

When that was achieved IRA disarmament and British de-militarisation (as critical to success IMO) followed

Francie you have lost the run of yourself. You are clutching at tiny straws.
So where did the british declare an intention to withdraw? Link please?
And shock horror - they have no strategic interest. Haha this did not annoy unionists as we have known for 40 years that there was no strategic interest in ni. But sure if that keeps you happy.
Haha who would have a strategic interest in somewhere that was costing them billions a year Maybe if we find a diamond mine in the Mourne’s that will all change

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Describe this 'surrender'?

You can't because it didn't happwn except in feverish minds of the worst kind of Irish person and delusional British people.

A fully armed group negotiating an agreement with a government that was previously trying to militarily defeat it is not a surrender.

What you continue to reveal is a hat doffing servile mentality that swallows what colonists and imperialists want you to believe.

It is evident in all colonies...the inability to shake off the inferiority complex your colonists gave you intentionally. It takes several generations for it to be shook off.

Try thinking for yourself.

How is it hat doffing to call it surrender when a terrorist org disarms and as you claim fully disbands without achieving their singular aim?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

How is it hat doffing to call it surrender when a terrorist org disarms and as you claim fully disbands without achieving their singular aim?

You are so intent on demeaning you refuse to see or accept that disarming only happened when an agreement that massively advanced the interests of Irish people was achieved.

No group ever went into battle saying.. 'Well, we might achieve this...or with a bit of luck we might...etc etc.

The GFA is Britain's tacit withdrawal, thet have no longer got a selfish or strategic interest here and the GFA also protected the rest of us on this island over Brexit.
It is a massive achievement by all who negotiated it and held strong in the face of unionist opposition to it.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are so intent on demeaning you refuse to see or accept that disarming only happened when an agreement that massively advanced the interests of Irish people was achieved.

No group ever went into battle saying.. 'Well, we might achieve this...or with a bit of luck we might...etc etc.

The GFA is Britain's tacit withdrawal, thet have no longer got a selfish or strategic interest here and the GFA also protected the rest of us on this island over Brexit.
It is a massive achievement by all who negotiated it and held strong in the face of unionist opposition to it.

How was it a tacit withdrawal by the British after the IRA surrender? The BA were no longer required but it is still part of Britain, direct rule is possible at any time and the British decide when if at all a referendum takes place.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

How was it a tacit withdrawal by the British after the IRA surrender? The BA were no longer required but it is still part of Britain, direct rule is possible at any time and the British decide when if at all a referendum takes place.

Because Britain will no longer defend it's interests. Which it very much did up to the GFA.
It is now what it always should have been, up to the people of the island of Ireland to decide it's fate.

Of course you and downcow will handwave that away as nothing but it was and is seismic.
May and Johnson tested the strenght of the GFA but failed to find any wiggle room in it and had to shaft unionists instead.
The 'majority' of people on this island wish to be in the EU and Britain has to accomodate that.

'We decide', not Britain.
Poor old Enda and indeed Leo didnt realise the power they had and ruled out special status for NI until SF showed them the way in a series of Dail debates on the matter.

The GFA was no surrender; it was an achievement that empowers and protects us to this day

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because Britain will no longer defend it's interests. Which it very much did up to the GFA.
It is now what it always should have been, up to the people of the island of Ireland to decide it's fate.

Of course you and downcow will handwave that away as nothing but it was and is seismic.
May and Johnson tested the strenght of the GFA but failed to find any wiggle room in it and had to shaft unionists instead.
The 'majority' of people on this island wish to be in the EU and Britain has to accomodate that.

'We decide', not Britain.
Poor old Enda and indeed Leo didnt realise the power they had and ruled out special status for NI until SF showed them the way in a series of Dail debates on the matter.

The GFA was no surrender; it was an achievement that empowers and protects us to this day

But the people of NI decide not "we". No matter how many people in the Republic want a UI it only happens if NI says so.

The GFA allows for the North to remain British indefinitely yet the IRA are gone. Sounds like surrender to me or failure if you prefer.