Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

Fionn1952 · 09-03-2021 2:50pm

jh79 wrote: »

I get that bit but the idea that the SoS would just call one, with opinion polls showing a clear win for remaining in the UK, makes no sense.

Shutting the Shinners up for seven years could be one potential reason, just as an example.

Or (purely hypothetically here) if they decided to jettison NI, strategically announcing a border poll very close to another particularly onerous piece of legislation to attempt to sway the electorate (without directly contradicting their responsibility to remain impartial as per the GFA by maintaining plausible deniability over any connection between the two). Obviously this would be more plausible in the event of a less extreme split than 43/57, but in the event it was a few percent closer, it could at least be potentially feasible.

Again, I'm not suggesting either of these will happen, or indeed that they are anywhere in line with British government goals, just hypothetical reasons that the British government could wish to call a border poll when opinion polls suggest that it would not pass.

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 3:15pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again with the pathetic pleading to change an agreement that has already been entered into.

The GFA, The Withdrawal Agreement, The NI Protocol.

What is it about democracy that so frightens people?

It is not changing any agreement.

The GFA states a minimum of seven years before another poll. It is fully compatible with the GFA to create another agreement that there would be a 30-year gap between the two.

FrancieBrady · 09-03-2021 3:17pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not changing any agreement.

The GFA states a minimum of seven years before another poll. It is fully compatible with the GFA to create another agreement that there would be a 30-year gap between the two.

An 'agreement' with whom? Among partitionists and Unionists? Maybe an item for the next FG party conference?

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 3:19pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

In the (likely) event that we have a SF First Minister and a more elected Nationalist representatives than Unionist after the next election cycle, it could be argued that passes the, 'likely to pass' test if one was so minded.

If a (hypothetical) poll demonstrated 49% in favour of Unification and 51% against it with a significant number of don't knows, it could still be argued as, 'unlikely to pass' if one was so minded.

Ultimately the Secretary of State will establish his own criteria, as there are no defined criteria in place which could force his hand either way.

My own suspicion is that it will end up being called for whenever it is politically expedient for the sitting British government with little consideration for NI one way or another.

A Sinn Fein First Minister is equivalent to the last election outcome in the South, it didn't guarantee anything for Sinn Fein.

As you say, the Secretary of State has to establish his own criteria, and as a previous case has shown, these can't be challenged until they are created, so we are a long way off a referendum. The SoS could not credibly or legally call a border poll while there is not a nationalist majority in Stormont and while opinion polls consistently say it will fail.

I could see a future Labour government trying to call a poll for ideological reasons but that would run the risk of being overturned in a court and bringing the government down.

FrancieBrady · 09-03-2021 3:21pm

blanch152 wrote: »

A Sinn Fein First Minister is equivalent to the last election outcome in the South, it didn't guarantee anything for Sinn Fein.

As you say, the Secretary of State has to establish his own criteria, and as a previous case has shown, these can't be challenged until they are created, so we are a long way off a referendum. The SoS could not credibly or legally call a border poll while there is not a nationalist majority in Stormont and while opinion polls consistently say it will fail.

I could see a future Labour government trying to call a poll for ideological reasons but that would run the risk of being overturned in a court and bringing the government down.

Not this nonsense again.

Maybe somebody else could rubbish this. Too tired of it. Relentless.

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 3:21pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As Britain is more and more cutailed I can see how they would call one.
Horses for courses etc etc

The opinion poll referenced here surprisingly shows that 65% of English voters would care about Irish unification.

The rest wouldn't care, but that makes it still a significant gamble. If you consider that Labour are unlikely to get in on their own, a border poll is a significant risk.

FrancieBrady · 09-03-2021 3:22pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The opinion poll referenced here surprisingly shows that 65% of English voters would care about Irish unification.

The rest wouldn't care, but that makes it still a significant gamble. If you consider that Labour are unlikely to get in on their own, a border poll is a significant risk.

You seem more anxious about convincing yourself of something here.

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 3:22pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not this nonsense again.

Maybe somebody else could rubbish this. Too tired of it. Relentless.

Nothing nonsensical about it. If you don't have a nationalist majority and you don't have opinion polls in favour of unification, on what other basis can a SoS conclude that it is likely (i.e. more probable than not) that a poll would pass? A straw in the wind? A walk down the Bogside?

Fionn1952 · 09-03-2021 4:12pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Nothing nonsensical about it. If you don't have a nationalist majority and you don't have opinion polls in favour of unification, on what other basis can a SoS conclude that it is likely (i.e. more probable than not) that a poll would pass? A straw in the wind? A walk down the Bogside?

If a significant middle ground of Alliance Party seats are held, and there is neither a Nationalist nor Unionist majority due to this, how would this demonstrate a lack of support for Unification any more than it demonstrates a lack of support for continued membership of the UK?

The sensible comparison is of course to compare Nationalist seats to Unionist seats. In the event that there was to be a SF First Minister, SF would be the largest party and in all likelihood, there would be more Nationalist seats than Unionist ones. In what way could that be taken as greater support for the Unionist position than the Nationalist position?

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 4:34pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If a significant middle ground of Alliance Party seats are held, and there is neither a Nationalist nor Unionist majority due to this, how would this demonstrate a lack of support for Unification any more than it demonstrates a lack of support for continued membership of the UK?

The sensible comparison is of course to compare Nationalist seats to Unionist seats. In the event that there was to be a SF First Minister, SF would be the largest party and in all likelihood, there would be more Nationalist seats than Unionist ones. In what way could that be taken as greater support for the Unionist position than the Nationalist position?

If the middle ground favours an independent Northern Ireland, or greater devolution within the UK, how does that get catered for?

Fionn1952 · 09-03-2021 4:40pm

blanch152 wrote: »

If the middle ground favours an independent Northern Ireland, or greater devolution within the UK, how does that get catered for?

By renegotiating the GFA to make that a legal option and then ensuring that enough people favour it to vote for it over Unification or continued membership of the UK in a poll. As NI independence has never had more than fringe support, I'd imagine even the first step of that is incredibly unlikely to occur. Given that this middle ground currently primarily votes for the Alliance Party who absolutely do not have a policy of supporting an independent NI, what gives you the impression that it is in any way reasonable to infer that is the favoured outcome for that middle ground?

Care to answer the question in the post rather than responding with a tangentially related question?

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 4:42pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

By renegotiating the GFA to make that a legal option and then ensuring that enough people favour it to vote for it over Unification or continued membership of the UK in a poll. As NI independence has never had more than fringe support, I'd imagine even the first step of that is incredibly unlikely to occur. Given that this middle ground currently primarily votes for the Alliance Party who absolutely do not have a policy of supporting an independent NI, what gives you the impression that it is in any way reasonable to infer that is the favoured outcome for that middle ground?

Care to answer the question in the post rather than responding with a tangentially related question?

The Alliance Party favour the other option I mentioned - greater devolution to Stormont and reform of Stormont while staying in the UK but also closer links to the EU. Not a big leap from there to independence within the Commonwealth and EU.

BonnieSituation · 09-03-2021 4:58pm

blanch152 wrote: »

If the middle ground favours an independent Northern Ireland, or greater devolution within the UK, how does that get catered for?

This is up there with Sainsbury's-gate as an answer to the question no one is asking.

All because you have nothing in your book of partitionist talking points of what to do in the event of a nationalist first minister!

Fionn1952 · 09-03-2021 5:03pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The Alliance Party favour the other option I mentioned - greater devolution to Stormont and reform of Stormont while staying in the UK but also closer links to the EU. Not a big leap from there to independence within the Commonwealth and EU.

It's a pretty f*cking huge leap from increased devolution to an independent NI (with your newly tagged on but essentially irrelevant Commonwealth membership), specifically because (as already highlighted) it would require a renegotiation of the GFA for the latter. Increased devolution isn't a response to the Constitutional position of NI, it is a here-and-now approach to the current situation without addressing the Constitutional position.

Can you link me to anything from the Alliance Party indicating any degree of support or a single policy even subtly implying they are in favour of an independent NI? Have you ever actually interacted with a single member of The Alliance Party? I'd imagine quite a few of them would be quite offended at how badly your reasoning runs contrary to their Party ethos.

You know this is an absolutely idiotic line you're taking (purely to try and scramble away from your slightly less illogical assertion that a Stormont government which has more Nationalists than Unionists, but neither with an absolute majority would suggest support for continued membership of the UK over Unification).....all of this to dodge answering a pretty simple question that was put to you?!

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 5:09pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

It's a pretty f*cking huge leap from increased devolution to an independent NI (with your newly tagged on but essentially irrelevant Commonwealth membership), specifically because (as already highlighted) it would require a renegotiation of the GFA for the latter. Increased devolution isn't a response to the Constitutional position of NI, it is a here-and-now approach to the current situation without addressing the Constitutional position.

Can you link me to anything from the Alliance Party indicating any degree of support or a single policy even subtly implying they are in favour of an independent NI? Have you ever actually interacted with a single member of The Alliance Party? I'd imagine quite a few of them would be quite offended at how badly your reasoning runs contrary to their Party ethos.

You know this is an absolutely idiotic line you're taking (purely to try and scramble away from your slightly less illogical assertion that a Stormont government which has more Nationalists than Unionists, but neither with an absolute majority would suggest support for continued membership of the UK over Unification).....all of this to dodge answering a pretty simple question that was put to you?!

If you somehow think that a SF First Minister on 24% means that a border poll becomes inevitable, you are at the same level of delusion as the SF supporters who think Mary-Lou is the real Taoiseach because of election results down here.

Junkyard Tom · 09-03-2021 5:15pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm happy with that poll funnily enough, it is exactly as I would expect it to be at this stage and with the parameters.

It's hilarious how far the arch-partitionists have moved. A few years back they would have shat-the-bed at the thought of a no-plan unification poll returning such high support, now they claim it as a victory.

Fionn1952 · 09-03-2021 5:18pm

blanch152 wrote: »

If you somehow think that a SF First Minister on 24% means that a border poll becomes inevitable, you are at the same level of delusion as the SF supporters who think Mary-Lou is the real Taoiseach because of election results down here.

Ducking and diving like a mad man, Blanch.

Can you point out where I stated anything even approaching that? Anywhere at all where I stated that a border poll is inevitable, let alone providing that as a justification for it?

Because I can provide quotes of you trying to scramble away from your initial claims by stating that Alliance Party supported continued membership of the UK (despite the ACTUAL party position being a very explicit and clear policy of neutrality with regards to Unification) and claiming that it isn't a huge leap to go from supporting increased devolution to supporting getting rid of the GFA and having an independent NI.

Honestly Blanch, we're all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts. Anything you've claimed as factual in this interaction has been demonstrably incorrect.

.....and you still havent actually responded to any of the points raised to you. You just scramble on to another total non-sequitur. I presume it is because you're entirely aware that you've made a balls of whatever point you were trying to make and your ego won't let you just acknowledge the mistake and move on? Doubling down on a mistake with another couple of mistakes and then an outright lie doesn't reflect any better on you than just acknowledging that you were wrong.

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 6:12pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Ducking and diving like a mad man, Blanch.

Can you point out where I stated anything even approaching that? Anywhere at all where I stated that a border poll is inevitable, let alone providing that as a justification for it?

Because I can provide quotes of you trying to scramble away from your initial claims by stating that Alliance Party supported continued membership of the UK (despite the ACTUAL party position being a very explicit and clear policy of neutrality with regards to Unification) and claiming that it isn't a huge leap to go from supporting increased devolution to supporting getting rid of the GFA and having an independent NI.

Honestly Blanch, we're all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts. Anything you've claimed as factual in this interaction has been demonstrably incorrect.

.....and you still havent actually responded to any of the points raised to you. You just scramble on to another total non-sequitur. I presume it is because you're entirely aware that you've made a balls of whattever point you were trying to make and your ego won't let you just acknowledge the mistake and move on? Doubling down on a mistake with another couple of mistakes and then an outright lie doesn't reflect any better on you than just acknowledging that you were wrong.

The Alliance Party certainly doesn't support a united Ireland, and its policies seek change to the existing devolved structures

There are certainly suggestions of a Northern Irish identity. On human rights they say a Bill should "avoid entrenching any particular view of identity, such as the notion of two separate communities in Northern Ireland and, accordingly, sectarian divisions". I also think that any party that supports "a UK-wide constitutional convention to develop a fully codified constitution", is hardly neutral towards staying in the UK. The USP of the Alliance is that they reject both unionism and nationalism.

If you reject the regressive and sectarian entities of nationalism and unionism in the North, the only thing you can promote is a secular unified non-partisan Northern Irish identity. The Alliance Party has no option but to go down this road sooner or later, or else it risks losing half its support. The end-point of that road is a compromise settlement that supercedes the GFA but doesn't result in a united Ireland but also doesn't see Northern Ireland staying in the UK.

No international treaty is immune to change, the Treaties forming the EU have changed many many times. And so someday the GFA will change.

Fionn1952 · 09-03-2021 6:43pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The Alliance Party certainly doesn't support a united Ireland, and its policies seek change to the existing devolved structures

There are certainly suggestions of a Northern Irish identity. On human rights they say a Bill should "avoid entrenching any particular view of identity, such as the notion of two separate communities in Northern Ireland and, accordingly, sectarian divisions". I also think that any party that supports "a UK-wide constitutional convention to develop a fully codified constitution", is hardly neutral towards staying in the UK. The USP of the Alliance is that they reject both unionism and nationalism.

If you reject the regressive and sectarian entities of nationalism and unionism in the North, the only thing you can promote is a secular unified non-partisan Northern Irish identity. The Alliance Party has no option but to go down this road sooner or later, or else it risks losing half its support. The end-point of that road is a compromise settlement that supercedes the GFA but doesn't result in a united Ireland but also doesn't see Northern Ireland staying in the UK.

No international treaty is immune to change, the Treaties forming the EU have changed many many times. And so someday the GFA will change.

It is a simple, very well publicised and clear fact that the Alliance Party has a policy of neutrality on the Constitutional position of NI, end of story. Their lack of explicit support for Unification is no more a support for continued membership of the UK than their lack of explicit support for continued membership of the UK is a support for Unification. This is precisely my point all along - the middle ground can't be wholly considered to be in favour of Unification, nor can it be wholly considered to be in favour of continued membership of the UK, ergo trying to look at a Stormont that holds neither an absolute Nationalist nor Unionist majority, it doesn't make sense to try and lump the entirety of the Alliance Party with one side or the other to suggest that is the prevailing view. This means when looking at the data point that is the makeup of Stormont as an indicating factor for Unification support, a comparison between the number of Nationalist seats versus Unionist seats is logical, as it excludes the unknowns which could fall either way of the Alliance Party rather than assuming a position for them either way.

No amount of dodging, ducking and diving or attempted word play changes this. Their position can not be read as a soft touch support for continued membership of a reformed United Kingdom; they explicitly reject this interpretation of their position (to the extent that Steve Aiken was calling for them to get off the fence on the matter).

I'll take Naomi Long's interpretation on the Alliance Party's position on the matter over yours thank you very much. It is frankly bizarre that you find it so difficult to accept that you misspoke that you'd argue that the party themselves are wrong regarding their policies and you know better.

All the policies you point to are regarding accepting that NI is currently part of the UK.....well duh, Sinn Fein accept that NI is currently part of NI. Are you going to suggest that because SF (along with the Alliance Party and SDLP) are arguing for an Irish Language Act, despite this legislation being made redundant in the event of Unification that they're implicitly showing their support for NI's continued membership of the UK?

As your closing statement, again a total non sequitur. I stated that NI independence would require the GFA to be changed, this is factual. I don't know why you're responding to this by telling me that the GFA could be changed.....understanding this is implicit in my statement that it would be required. The problem is the changes you're suggesting are not desired by anyone outside of a tiny fringe group.....so who exactly is going to push for these changes and how would such a fringe desire pass the referenda likely required?

Finally, I'll highlight again that while I've engaged honestly and addressed each point you've made, you haven't actually responded to a single question I've asked. I'd ask that before you go off on a barely related tangent again, that you at least address this one which you managed to miss while spinning;

blanch152 wrote: »

If you somehow think that a SF First Minister on 24% means that a border poll becomes inevitable, you are at the same level of delusion as the SF supporters who think Mary-Lou is the real Taoiseach because of election results down here.

Can you point out where I stated anything even approaching that? Anywhere at all where I stated that a border poll is inevitable, let alone providing that as a justification for it?

FrancieBrady · 09-03-2021 6:57pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The Alliance Party certainly doesn't support a united Ireland, and its policies seek change to the existing devolved structures

There are certainly suggestions of a Northern Irish identity. On human rights they say a Bill should "avoid entrenching any particular view of identity, such as the notion of two separate communities in Northern Ireland and, accordingly, sectarian divisions". I also think that any party that supports "a UK-wide constitutional convention to develop a fully codified constitution", is hardly neutral towards staying in the UK. The USP of the Alliance is that they reject both unionism and nationalism.

If you reject the regressive and sectarian entities of nationalism and unionism in the North, the only thing you can promote is a secular unified non-partisan Northern Irish identity. The Alliance Party has no option but to go down this road sooner or later, or else it risks losing half its support. The end-point of that road is a compromise settlement that supercedes the GFA but doesn't result in a united Ireland but also doesn't see Northern Ireland staying in the UK.

No international treaty is immune to change, the Treaties forming the EU have changed many many times. And so someday the GFA will change.

Again the DUP line...'The GFA isn't sacrosanct' - Arlene Foster.

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 9:55pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again the DUP line...'The GFA isn't sacrosanct' - Arlene Foster.

No international Treaty is sacrosant. How else could the UK leave the EU? How could they have even joined in the first place without changes to international treaties?

FrancieBrady · 09-03-2021 10:02pm

blanch152 wrote: »

No international Treaty is sacrosant. How else could the UK leave the EU? How could they have even joined in the first place without changes to international treaties?

So are you gonna do a Boris and change the GFA unilaterally because it doesn't suit you now?
1. Need a super majority
2. No border poll for 30 years after the first one.

Arlene all over.

Fionn1952 · 09-03-2021 10:09pm

blanch152 wrote: »

No international Treaty is sacrosant. How else could the UK leave the EU? How could they have even joined in the first place without changes to international treaties?

Care to address any of the nonsense you spent the afternoon posting, Blanch (including insinuating I had said something I very clearly hadn't), or have you had a read back, a look into actual Alliance Party polices, realised you were talking absolute tosh and just decided to pretend it didn't happen rather than having the integrity to acknowledge it. In particular I'd appreciate a withdrawal of your insinuation that I even slightly implied anything around the idea that a 24% vote for SF was grounds for a border poll.

realdanbreen · 09-03-2021 10:12pm

With all the shaping and sabre rattling being done by loyalists at present it might be best for them to remember a few facts. Whatever chance Republicans had of bombing Britain out of Ireland the loyalists have zero chance of bombing Britain back in once they officially ditch the north. The ironic thing is that the more extreme unionists were the ones who roared loudest for Brexit which in turn has set in train the unravelling of the union.

blanch152 · 09-03-2021 10:20pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Care to address any of the nonsense you spent the afternoon posting, Blanch (including insinuating I had said something I very clearly hadn't), or have you had a read back, a look into actual Alliance Party polices, realised you were talking absolute tosh and just decided to pretend it didn't happen rather than having the integrity to acknowledge it. In particular I'd appreciate a withdrawal of your insinuation that I even slightly implied anything around the idea that a 24% vote for SF was grounds for a border poll.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

In the (likely) event that we have a SF First Minister and a more elected Nationalist representatives than Unionist after the next election cycle, it could be argued that passes the, 'likely to pass' test if one was so minded.

https://www.lucidtalk.co.uk/single-post/lt-ni-quarterly-tracker-poll-winter-2021

This poll has SF on 24% and taking the First Minister position with nationalists close enough to unionists. This is what I said:

If you somehow think that a SF First Minister on 24% means that a border poll becomes inevitable

It had a conditional "IF" allowing you to adapt your statement, if I had misinterpreted it, so why you are going off on one that I made an unfair insinuation.

Fionn1952 · 09-03-2021 10:38pm

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.lucidtalk.co.uk/single-post/lt-ni-quarterly-tracker-poll-winter-2021

This poll has SF on 24% and taking the First Minister position with nationalists close enough to unionists. This is what I said:

It had a conditional "IF" allowing you to adapt your statement, if I had misinterpreted it, so why you are going off on one that I made an unfair insinuation.

So you're not a liar, you just can't read context. Fair enough. Thanks for providing a poll that confirms everything I just said as accurate (it is indeed likely that there will be a SF First Minister)...a very strange technique to argue against my point, but I'll take it.

Since you clearly didn't understand it, I'll make it clear. My point was that the term, 'likely to pass' is highly open to interpretation. IF the SoS wished to make a case for saying a border poll was, 'likely to pass', pointing to Nationalist parties holding more seats than Unionist parties in Stormont and a SF First Minister could be read as such if one wanted to provide justification. You can clearly see that the quote finishes with, 'if one was so minded'.

If you weren't bouncing from point to point, arguing with The Alliance Party's interpretation of their own position, perhaps you would've been able to appreciate that it was clearly in the context of me already stating that

A) I do not believe a border poll would pass if called tomorrow

It was highlighted in response to your statement that even if there were more Nationalist seats than Unionist seats in Stormont, the lack of an outright majority for either would in and of itself be a rejection of Unification (but the lesser number of Unionist seats would somehow not be a rejection of continued membership of the United Kingdom, because despite explicitly stating they hold a neutral position on the matter, you've decided that Alliance Party are all liars who should be considered in favour of remaining part of the UK because they want increased devolution).

Honestly Blanch I get it, you hate SF and misread my post as if I was arguing in support of them, went off on one without actually considering what I had actually said, then started desperately flapping because your ego wouldn't let you admit that you were completely and utterly wrong on practically every count.

The conditional if is also such a blatant and obvious weasel word. I clearly said nothing that made that response relevant. If I said "If you want to defend paedophiles" when you had said nothing with any relevance whatsoever to do with defending paedophiles, I'd expect to be harshly reprimanded, I don't think you'd accept, 'it was a conditional IF' as a response. (To be clear, because I'm sure you'll try deflect off again, this is a purely hypothetical example of using a weasel word to make an insinuation without an outright accusation and I do not think you want to actually defend paedophiles).

Edited to fix a formatting issue on an italic

Sunny Disposition · 10-03-2021 2:56pm

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/watch-the-reason-dup-jim-wells-is-delighted-with-piers-morgan-gmb-departure-40181077.html?fbclid=IwAR2Mjxn37-_bsbtc3L81mMaxXWcyMsldy-YQr5S_IM1tcn2j80H-cZmASkE

Watch the clip, again it shows how dysfunctional the north has become, when unashamed homophobes can become ministers for health. It is scandalous, no way this would be acceptable in the Republic or the UK. Hasn’t been for years.

Sunny Disposition · 10-03-2021 2:59pm

What the hell is wrong with unionism that it doesn’t discourage homophobia? Most of the people I know who are Protestants in NI wouldn’t hold this kind of view themselves, but still will vote DUP.

maccored · 10-03-2021 3:12pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

With all the shaping and sabre rattling being done by loyalists at present it might be best for them to remember a few facts. Whatever chance Republicans had of bombing Britain out of Ireland the loyalists have zero chance of bombing Britain back in once they officially ditch the north. The ironic thing is that the more extreme unionists were the ones who roared loudest for Brexit which in turn has set in train the unravelling of the union.

thats the bit I find most hilarious about it all

Sunny Disposition · 10-03-2021 3:18pm

maccored wrote: »

thats the bit I find most hilarious about it all

There was a lack of realism from many of them. It just wasn't going to make NI more 'British', outdated thinking. Even if it had exacerbated a north south divide, that would really make the end of the Union even more likely, given that there is a Catholic majority coming in NI. Unionism doesn't seem to get it, it needs to take the focus off the constitutional issue and identity issues if the union is to have any chance.

Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

Comments