Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

That would come afterwards. Great analogy from natterjack.
Unions would not meet management to discuss how to introduce massive pay reductions and how to make them more palatable. That would be crazy.
But if management introduced them then the unions would support the workers to fight them.

Nonsense. Unions discuss/negotiate job and pay cuts all the time.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/unions-to-meet-rt%C3%A9-management-over-proposed-job-cuts-1.4078605

https://www.newstalk.com/news/union-seeks-urgent-meeting-aer-lingus-job-cuts-1033889

blanch152

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Yes, I can't fathom why people should expect unionist to engage in a dialogue about something they have no interest in changing. The status quo suits. So why engage in dialogue about something you don't want in the first place. Republicans, nationalists, and terrorists can do so, because the wish that change.
Trade unions don't go to employers demanding dialogue on pay reductions for example.

Republicans and nationalists don't engage in dialogue about it either. It is all land of milk and honey stuff where taxation of rainbows and unicorns will pay for it.

On the trade unions bit, I can't see the INTO or ASTI negotiating pay-cuts to bring teacher salaries into line North and South, in fact the opposite to be the case.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Is it any wonder some think ni has failed when we have people like this in our midst
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40213988.html%3ftype=amp
I have it from a source I trust that martina Anderson was at this funeral but covered up.
There was one one these republican displays in my hometown last week.

The arrogance is incredible

From what I see, Sinn Fein organised an online memorial. Martina herself was tweeting about it.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

That would come afterwards. Great analogy from natterjack.
Unions would not meet management to discuss how to introduce massive pay reductions and how to make them more palatable. That would be crazy.
But if management introduced them then the unions would support the workers to fight them.

I can see the Alliance just getting on with it and getting that middle ground vote that the UUP used to have before they starting trying to compete with the DUP.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense. Unions discuss/negotiate job and pay cuts all the time.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/unions-to-meet-rt%C3%A9-management-over-proposed-job-cuts-1.4078605

https://www.newstalk.com/news/union-seeks-urgent-meeting-aer-lingus-job-cuts-1033889

Very different Francie when an organisation needs to cut jobs the union gets involved when they are told jobs will be cut.
You want unionists to be complicit in organising a vote for a UI to happen.

If I was a negotiator at you meeting pre-poll I would want you to agree that in a future United ireland that unionists would not be allowed to wear shoes or drive cars and would have to tip their hats every time they met an ex-ira man. Could you organise that for us as that would make it even more sure we would win. Please don’t agree to give us lots of rights and make us special people - that could cause us a proble lol. When are these negotiations I love to attend haha

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Very different Francie when an organisation needs to cut jobs the union gets involved when they are told jobs will be cut.
You want unionists to be complicit in organising a vote for a UI to happen.

Will you stop mis-representing. I never said a word about them being 'complicit in organising a vote.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will you stop mis-representing. I never said a word about them being 'complicit in organising a vote.

What I mean is complicit in increasing the number voting for UI

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

What I mean is complicit in increasing the number voting for UI

I made a bet with you that Unionists will be involved in the negociations on what a UI would be, they will be briefing the British gvernment in their negotiations with the Irish government. That is what I said, no matter how you try to twist it into something else.



The bet is still on offer.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I made a bet with you that Unionists will be involved in the negociations on what a UI would be, they will be briefing the British gvernment in their negotiations with the Irish government. That is what I said, no matter how you try to twist it into something else.



The bet is still on offer.

I am twisting nothing. It is obvious to everyone that if unionists were to negotiate promises of an improved stuarion in a UI then they would be complicit in increasing the pro UI vote - obviously

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I am twisting nothing. It is obvious to everyone that if unionists were to negotiate promises of an improved stuarion in a UI then they would be complicit in increasing the pro UI vote - obviously

I didn't say anything about 'promises' either.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Republicans and nationalists don't engage in dialogue about it either. It is all land of milk and honey stuff where taxation of rainbows and unicorns will pay for it.

On the trade unions bit, I can't see the INTO or ASTI negotiating pay-cuts to bring teacher salaries into line North and South, in fact the opposite to be the case.

Mad how it's only Partitionists that seem to know what to be doing or discussing at all when it comes to reunification. Funny that.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

I am twisting nothing. It is obvious to everyone that if unionists were to negotiate promises of an improved stuarion in a UI then they would be complicit in increasing the pro UI vote - obviously

Almost all of your posts involve twisting their meaning to suit whatever strawman/lie you might want to talk about.

Remember how I wanted Unionists to be faced down? I'm still waiting on that apology and retraction by the way.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Mad how it's only Partitionists that seem to know what to be doing or discussing at all when it comes to reunification. Funny that.

Except I am not a partitionist, I am a realist.

Northern Ireland is 100 years old this year, occupying the same land area consistently for far longer than most European states.

As a result the differences between North and South have widened and deepened over the decades making any reunification project unrealistic without significant suffering for individuals be they taxpayers, social welfare recipients or public servants. Many could lose their jobs or their incomes, others could see penal tax rates effectively doing the same. It is important that such realism is brought to the debate.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Except I am not a partitionist, I am a realist.

Northern Ireland is 100 years old this year, occupying the same land area consistently for far longer than most European states.

As a result the differences between North and South have widened and deepened over the decades making any reunification project unrealistic without significant suffering for individuals be they taxpayers, social welfare recipients or public servants. Many could lose their jobs or their incomes, others could see penal tax rates effectively doing the same. It is important that such realism is brought to the debate.

Or the opportunity to fix what is wrong, economically and socially would be taken and we develop into an inclusive society that has the self esteem of being sovereign and paying our way.

For someone who claims not to be partitionist you have a unique ability to set up roadblocks and obstacles. That is not realistic it is pessimistic.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say anything about 'promises' either.

Francie why don’t you stop talking in riddles and then I won’t misunderstand you.
I genuinely thought you said unionists would discuss in the background with governments about outcome of UI. What would they bee doing if they weren’t getting promises?

And I see no way to interpret what you mean other than that unionists would be complicit in trying to improve package and therefore increase UI vote.

You are dancing again in the head of a pin

downcow

blanch152 wrote: »

Except I am not a partitionist, I am a realist.

Northern Ireland is 100 years old this year, occupying the same land area consistently for far longer than most European states.

As a result the differences between North and South have widened and deepened over the decades making any reunification project unrealistic without significant suffering for individuals be they taxpayers, social welfare recipients or public servants. Many could lose their jobs or their incomes, others could see penal tax rates effectively doing the same. It is important that such realism is brought to the debate.

Excellent post. Realism.

Beltby

downcow wrote: »

Francie why don’t you stop talking in riddles and then I won’t misunderstand you.
I genuinely thought you said unionists would discuss in the background with governments about outcome of UI. What would they bee doing if they weren’t getting promises?

And I see no way to interpret what you mean other than that unionists would be complicit in trying to improve package and therefore increase UI vote.

You are dancing again in the head of a pin

But unionists will be discussing it in the background. You know this. You're looking silly now, insisting that they won't engage in discussions with regard to a UI.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie why don’t you stop talking in riddles and then I won’t misunderstand you.
I genuinely thought you said unionists would discuss in the background with governments about outcome of UI. What would they bee doing if they weren’t getting promises?

And I see no way to interpret what you mean other than that unionists would be complicit in trying to improve package and therefore increase UI vote.

You are dancing again in the head of a pin

You've mis-represented what I said 3 times now and I'm dancing on the head of a pin? One last time:

Unionists will be involved in the negociations on what a UI would be, they will be briefing the British gvernment in their negotiations with the Irish government.

Natterjack from Kerry

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Mad how it's only Partitionists that seem to know what to be doing or discussing at all when it comes to reunification. Funny that.

Its not a discussion though. Its a one sided echo chamber of fellow fantasists.
Borders have been transitory arrangements all over Europe throughout its history. There is nothing special about an island being a single jurisdiction, and considering all aspects of the matter, partition was the well judged, and creative solution to a difficult problem a hundred years ago. Its weakness was that not enough people on the island realised how good a solution it is in order to make it work. It has evolved into an even better position, by the accidents of events outside it - the EU, and Brexit - and time now that people stopped dreaming and truly focused on building a great future for all on the island without the deranged obsession with the removal of the border playing any part in that effort.

FrancieBrady

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Its not a discussion though. Its a one sided echo chamber of fellow fantasists.
Borders have been transitory arrangements all over Europe throughout its history. There is nothing special about an island being a single jurisdiction, and considering all aspects of the matter, partition was the well judged, and creative solution to a difficult problem a hundred years ago. Its weakness was that not enough people on the island realised how good a solution it is in order to make it work. It has evolved into an even better position, by the accidents of events outside it - the EU, and Brexit - and time now that people stopped dreaming and truly focused on building a great future for all on the island without the deranged obsession with the removal of the border playing any part in that effort.

There is something 'special' about a failed entity being controlled by an agreement between two sovereign governments.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You've mis-represented what I said 3 times now and I'm dancing on the head of a pin? One last time:

Unionists will be involved in the negociations on what a UI would be, they will be briefing the British gvernment in their negotiations with the Irish government.

So help me. Will their purpose be to receive promises? I can’t imagine another reason.

Dyr

Lucy8080 wrote: »

According to a retweet on Nicola Sturgeon's twitter account, 20 polls in a row indicate a sustained majority for Scottish independence.

Scotland may end up being the real story for both these islands. Scottish independence would surely be a difficult situation/dilemma for northern Unionists to evaluate.

Scots havent got the bottle to go their own way, never had. You'd want a few half decent attempts at rebellions to indicate a desire to be out from under the English

The same English just yeeted them out of the EU and, looking at those polls, I'd be fairly sure the Scots will still shy at the fence in a referendum

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So help me. Will their purpose be to receive promises? I can’t imagine another reason.

Their purpose will be to negotiate on their behalf and on behalf of the Unionist people to ensure they are protected in any new state. Mature progressive politics in other words.
There will no doubt be Unionists shouting and roaring and ignoring it as well, but the world moved on despite them several times now.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Their purpose will be to negotiate on their behalf and on behalf of the Unionist people to ensure they are protected in any new state. Mature progressive politics in other words.
There will no doubt be Unionists shouting and roaring and ignoring it as well, but the world moved on despite them several times now.

So I didn’t misrepresent you. They will seek promises and they will be complicit in negotiating a more attractive arrangement resulting in increased UI vote.

Not a chance! Or they are not unionists

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So I didn’t misrepresent you. They will seek promises and they will be complicit in negotiating a more attractive arrangement resulting in increased UI vote.

Not a chance! Or they are not unionists

Fascinating that you think that can be done.

The British will be allwed formulate Unionists protections and rights without any input from Unionists is your view. You are entitled to it.

I happen to think they'll be there, the mature ones anyhow.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fascinating that you think that can be done.

The British will be allwed formulate Unionists protections and rights without any input from Unionists is your view. You are entitled to it.

I happen to think they'll be there, the mature ones anyhow.

“ formulate Unionists protections”. Could another word for that be garner promises?

Francie I reckon everyone else on this forum knows why unionists leaders will not try to improve a UI package prior to a UI vote.
I honestly am bemused why you don’t get it? I understand wishful thinking and all that but this is fanciful

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

“ formulate Unionists protections”. Could another word for that be garner promises?

Francie I reckon everyone else on this forum knows why unionists leaders will not try to improve a UI package prior to a UI vote.
I honestly am bemused why you don’t get it? I understand wishful thinking and all that but this is fanciful

You do what you think best, but don't come crying here when you find yourself in a UI that you had nothing to do with formulating. Much like belligerent Unionists did about the AIA and the GFA.

Learning from history used to be a thing, obviously not, in belligerent Unionism.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You do what you think best, but don't come crying here when you find yourself in a UI that you had nothing to do with formulating. Much like belligerent Unionists did about the AIA and the GFA.

Learning from history used to be a thing, obviously not, in belligerent Unionism.

Well the gfa has turned out to be a tremendous protection to us and the AIA is no more.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Well the gfa has turned out to be a tremendous protection to us and the AIA is no more.

It was meant to protect everyone, in the north and the rest of the island. No better example of that is the border in the Irish Sea.

Glad you can see that.

The GFA superceded the AIA, just as a bi-lateral Agreement on a UI, approved by the two parliaments and lodged with the UN wiill supercede the GFA.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was meant to protect everyone, in the north and the rest of the island. No better example of that is the border in the Irish Sea.

Glad you can see that.

The GFA superceded the AIA, just as a bi-lateral Agreement on a UI, approved by the two parliaments and lodged with the UN wiill supercede the GFA.

The gfa was transformational in that the british, Eu, American and Roi governments recognised the right of the people of ni to self determination and this was agreed by majorities of the people in Roi and ni. Fantastic reassurance of the legitimacy of OWC for any who were doubting it. And in addition the sectarian paramilitaries of the ira and uff were neutered
Sounds like we are all happy.