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

downcow

bonzothedog wrote: »

But then it is very likely we revert to violence in the north, surely we need to do our best for the unionists and the moderates, I would probably vote for a united Ireland but only just- of the tradeoff is more violence and killing you can keep it.

You are very optimistic if you think you will contain it in the North

briany

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't really understand why varadkar is saying titles like taoiseach will need to go on a United Ireland. The Constitution is changed by simple majority and there will be no majority for that. Even if it's part of a bundle of changes, I don't see the political gain for appeasement of what will be a small minority.

It will also be quickly reversed by a nationalist government looking for an easy win.

Whatever about such titles needing to go, it does raise the point of what a united Ireland would actually look like in terms of its institutions and so forth. The GFA doesn't really have a lot of detail on it, so there appears to be much ambiguity around basic questions like would it mean a new country or simply absorbing NI into the existing Republic?

downcow

eire4 wrote: »

That is a very valid point.
I think that there is good arguments for some changes in a new reunified Ireland as part of a new start for everyone that can be good not just as appeasement to unionists though, but positive for everyone. For instance our national anthem is very war like and I would be happy to see a new national anthem that was more positive and up lifting rather then one about war and fighting as an example.

Which anthem are you talking about changing?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly what I meant.

Symbolic gestures are fine also but I would not think a change of flag or anthem will cut much mustard with many anyhow.

It will come down to how we interact and agree on matters of state and constitution and I genuinely don't see any huge issues there. Plenty of debate as happens anywhere but all happening in a democratic way.

Would that democracy extend to part of this new Ireland being allowed to be devolved if it so wished, or is it centralised majority rule from Dublin that you are talking about

briany

downcow wrote: »

You are very optimistic if you think you will contain it in the North

Please elaborate.

downcow

briany wrote: »

Please elaborate.

Someone had referred to violence in the North following a united Ireland. Surely violence kicked off in the North in a united Ireland was no border and the main 'enemy' was in the south, then it would seem highly unusual that such violence would be contained in the North - unless of course the intention is to militarise the old border - and then you have to wonder what the point was a uniting Ireland and dividing the people

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I actually agree with you on that one Francie. I think I said on here some time ago, that it will be you guys feeding the crocodiles - and we will be the crocodiles. And rather than throw the toys out of the pram like the shinners did if someone accuses us of being crocodiles getting fed, I think we will all just have a big wry smile and be pleased that we are getting to you lol

Well Jim Allister positively gloats about being a burden on the British taxpayer.

downcow

briany wrote: »

Whatever about such titles needing to go, it does raise the point of what a united Ireland would actually look like in terms of its institutions and so forth. The GFA doesn't really have a lot of detail on it, so there appears to be much ambiguity around basic questions like would it mean a new country or simply absorbing NI into the existing Republic?

I don't see any ambiguity amongst most of the posters here. They all talk in terms of ROI absorbing Northern Ireland. They may not say it out right but it is crystal clear in their subtext. They refer to the changes that may or may not be needed in the constitution, with the flag, with the anthem, etc. can you not see the subtext. There are currently two flags, two countries, two anthems. In their eyes this is not about bringing two countries together in unification, they are not even considering my fly, my anthem, etc.
it's really very obvious to all Unionists what people mean by a united Ireland

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Would that democracy extend to part of this new Ireland being allowed to be devolved if it so wished, or is it centralised majority rule from Dublin that you are talking about

downcow...in a democracy if you can find majority support for something you can do it.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

downcow...in a democracy if you can find majority support for something you can do it.

Could you explain to me the majority that achieved devolution for Northern Ireland within the UK?
I didn't think you needed a majority for that sort of thing historically

briany

downcow wrote: »

Someone had referred to violence in the North following a united Ireland. Surely violence kicked off in the North in a united Ireland was no border and the main 'enemy' was in the south, then it would seem highly unusual that such violence would be contained in the North - unless of course the intention is to militarise the old border - and then you have to wonder what the point was a uniting Ireland and dividing the people

Your scenario comes down to who would be starting the violence in the North that then leaks down south. If, in the case of a United Ireland, there were sudden violent pogroms against Unionist communities and Gardai firing rubber bullets at Orange Order parades, I could understand the logical progression towards violence. But if, on the other hand, it's Loyalists kicking off because they just can't handle a UI, without even giving it a chance, then they can basically F off and they would have no respectable international sympathy whatsoever.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Could you explain to me the majority that achieved devolution for Northern Ireland within the UK?
I didn't think you needed a majority for that sort of thing historically

What?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

I think I asked you yesterday why you think 10 million vaccines were exported out of the EU to the UK while none went the other way? It was a simple question and it would be nice simple answer from Republican any?

You didn't.

downcow

briany wrote: »

Your scenario comes down to who would be starting the violence in the North that then leaks down south. If, in the case of a United Ireland, there were sudden violent pogroms against Unionist communities and Gardai firing rubber bullets at Orange Order parades, I could understand the logical progression towards violence. But if, on the other hand, it's Loyalists kicking off because they just can't handle a UI, without even giving it a chance, then they can basically F off and they would have no respectable international sympathy whatsoever.

It wasn't me said there would be violence, I was simply saying that if there was it would not be contained in the North as some are suggesting

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

You said we would need a majority to support devolution for an area of Ireland. Do you mean a majority in the whole Island? If that is the case I don't remember a majority of the UK agreeing to devolution for NI or Scotland?
So maybe we don't need a majority to achieve devolution

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You said we would need a majority to support devolution for an area of Ireland. Do you mean a majority in the whole Island? If that is the case I don't remember a majority of the UK agreeing to devolution for NI or Scotland?
So maybe we don't need a majority to achieve devolution

The current form of devolution in the UK goes back to the late 1990s. In 1997 voters chose to
create a Scottish Parliamentand a National Assembly for Wales.

Devolution in Northern Ireland was part of the GFA which was endorsed by the electorate in a referendum.

Democracy in action.

markodaly

Partition was also democracy in action, just saying.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Partition was also democracy in action, just saying.

The type of 'democracy' that is rocking up to your coast in a warship threatening immediate and terrible war. Yeh, right mark, you are welcome to that brand of democracy.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The type of 'democracy' that is rocking up to your coast in a warship threatening immediate and terrible war. Yeh, right mark, you are welcome to that brand of democracy.

The treaty was the treaty. I know you hate it and would have advocated more bloodshed, more war, hell you even advocated the old IRA invading the North, or even the British invading Ulster... mad off the wall stuff.

However, Northern Ireland was part of the Free State for a mere 24 hours, until the rejoined the Union, as per the vote in Stormont.

Democracy in action.
That is all.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

I don't see any ambiguity amongst most of the posters here. They all talk in terms of ROI absorbing Northern Ireland. They may not say it out right but it is crystal clear in their subtext. They refer to the changes that may or may not be needed in the constitution, with the flag, with the anthem, etc. can you not see the subtext. There are currently two flags, two countries, two anthems. In their eyes this is not about bringing two countries together in unification, they are not even considering my fly, my anthem, etc.
it's really very obvious to all Unionists what people mean by a united Ireland

All we hear down here is loyalist / DUP demands. I'd like to hear a bit more from moderate unionists such as the Andrew Trimbles and Naomi Longs for a change. Its pointless talking to the Sammy Wilsons and Greg because they won't engage. Its not fair on possibly the 70-80% of people from NI who don't get a look in.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

The treaty was the treaty. I know you hate it and would have advocated more bloodshed, more war, hell you even advocated the old IRA invading the North, or even the British invading Ulster... mad off the wall stuff.

However, Northern Ireland was part of the Free State for a mere 24 hours, until the rejoined the Union, as per the vote in Stormont.

Democracy in action.
That is all.

Under the threat of immediate and terrible war and Carson's guns mark. Come back into the real and factual world.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Under the threat of immediate and terrible war and Carson's guns mark. Come back into the real and factual world.

The real world?

I wasn't making grand pronouncements about invading the North, now was I? :pac:

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

The real world?

I wasn't making grand pronouncements about invading the North, now was I? :pac:

Divert when your knowledge of history is found out.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Devolution in Northern Ireland was part of the GFA which was endorsed by the electorate in a referendum.

Democracy in action.

That was not endorse by the UK population and I don’t remember the UK population endorsing either scottish or welsh devolution.
You have raised a really interesting point that I am encouraged by. So history has set a precedent that the entire population don’t need consulted on a region devolving. I therefore see no reason why an area to the north east of a new Ireland cannot devolve.
One we devolve then we push for increased autonomy and eventually independence.
Tell me what’s wrong with any of that?

downcow

markodaly wrote: »

The treaty was the treaty. I know you hate it and would have advocated more bloodshed, more war, hell you even advocated the old IRA invading the North, or even the British invading Ulster... mad off the wall stuff.

However, Northern Ireland was part of the Free State for a mere 24 hours, until the rejoined the Union, as per the vote in Stormont.

Democracy in action.
That is all.

Great point. I think it will take more than 24 hours next time , and it may not be the union that we join, but we will definitely not be in a harmonious united ireland 3 years later

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

All we hear down here is loyalist / DUP demands. I'd like to hear a bit more from moderate unionists such as the Andrew Trimbles and Naomi Longs for a change. Its pointless talking to the Sammy Wilsons and Greg because they won't engage. Its not fair on possibly the 70-80% of people from NI who don't get a look in.

Haha. Now we have jmo8 confirming that the alliance party leader is a unionist.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Under the threat of immediate and terrible war and Carson's guns mark. Come back into the real and factual world.

Do you think a threat of war would work again?
It worked for Leo with the protocol

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Do you think a threat of war would work again?
It worked for Leo with the protocol

Hasn't the DUP (Edwin Poots) and Jamie Bryson tried those threats? Didn't work. The protocol remains.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

That was not endorse by the UK population and I don’t remember the UK population endorsing either scottish or welsh devolution.
You have raised a really interesting point that I am encouraged by. So history has set a precedent that the entire population don’t need consulted on a region devolving. I therefore see no reason why an area to the north east of a new Ireland cannot devolve.
One we devolve then we push for increased autonomy and eventually independence.
Tell me what’s wrong with any of that?

Because PARLIAMENT IS SOVEREIGN in the UK, here the people are sovereign, constitutional change here can only be brought about by referendum.

maccored

britain is taking quite the economic battering with brexit - cant see them hanging onto the north while they are haemorrhaging the kind of money they are to lost exports