Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You reckon? If it's a failure today then they would decry that statement and point out successes. Should not be that hard.

I'm asking a straightforward question. I've asked it in various formats and versions to assist them.

Apparently the lack of parameters are the main issue.

If the beligerent Unionists are not able to call it a failure then they should be able to point to noted successes that show how the partition of Ireland worked.

The premise of the OP is clear. I appreciate your attempt though to help them out of a hole however.

Crystal clear answer. https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=United+Kingdom&city1=Dublin&city2=Belfast&tracking=getDispatchComparison

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

I don't agree, the Ulster Volunteers like the IRA were prepared to fight for their own cause. It wasn't all a bluff.

Now they are going to fight the British again? Make your mind up here.

What nonsense is this? The British gave the North an option to stay with the Free State, outside of the Union or cede from it and rejoin the Union.
What you are calling for British subjugation of a part of the island. Irony of ironies. {/QUOTE]
They shouldn't have been given the option...partition was wrong and there is nothing wrong with saying NO.

Again, Irish people asserting their own version of democracy, good.
Unionists asserting their own version of democracy, bad.
:D:D

Having your cake and eating it.

Partition was imposed by implied threat, it was far from democratic. Unionists got partition because they raised a private army and threatened to use it.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

I actually have a wee smile to myself when I see ROI demonstrating so publicly that the can’t tolerate any reference to uk.

The complete lack of self-awareness in unionists like you must seem bewildering to any neutral readers of the thread. Unionists so despise their Irish/Nationalist neighbours that they can't bear to look at the native language in public spaces.

Unionists were so enraged by the sight of the word 'Uisce' on a manhole cover that one sad bastard took the time to grind it off:



Meanwhile there is no other place in the world outside British jurisdiction where artefacts of the former colonists remain. Look at just about any older postbox in the south and you'll see the royal insignia.

In my opinion we didn't decolonise nearly enough but I won't get upset about it, join a Republican band, and seek to march through Ballymena.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now they are going to fight the British again? Make your mind up here.

They were going to do what they thought was best for them, like the IRA/Dev/Collins and Co. in the south.

They shouldn't have been given the option...partition was wrong and there is nothing wrong with saying NO.

Apart from the obvious question then, what comes next.
You flat out refuse to detail any possible scenarios or your masterplan of how one could have avoided partition if we as a nation said 'No'.

Your refusal is testament to the fact that deep down you admit that partition was inevitable.
Do you disagree? Give us the master plan so?

Partition was imposed by implied threat, it was far from democratic. Unionists got partition because they raised a private army and threatened to use it.

And the Irish Free State was born because it raised a private army, called the IRA. You may of heard about them. Not only did they raise it, they used them.

Cake, eating.... and all that jazz

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

In my opinion we didn't decolonise nearly enough

Can you give examples of this?
If its just an argument about a few placenames, then its bubbles really, especially when we basically borrowed or stole everything else from the Brits.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

The majority seem happy with its name and allowing everyone to refer to it as they wish.

The majority of which exactly?

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Crystal clear answer. https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=United+Kingdom&city1=Dublin&city2=Belfast&tracking=getDispatchComparison

That's a comparison of Dublin and Belfast. It doesn't answer the question repeatedly put to you.

You have been asked whether Northern Ireland has been a failure. You have singularly failed to answer it. I can only surmise that you're afraid to answer it at this point.

---

Do you think Northern Ireland has been a failure?

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Not at all. I couldn’t care less what you write on your signs. I was simply asking why Roi put Derry on their road signs and uk put the official name.
Bonnie want evidence of ROI taking sides in ni issues. Then she said she needed something current. So I gave her this example.
I actually have a wee smile to myself when I see ROI demonstrating so publicly that the can’t tolerate any reference to uk.
It’s all a help in keeping northerners reminded that their would be no equality in a UI.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Please point exactly to the post where I sought "evidence of the ROI taking sides in NI issues".

Thank you.

---

I'd appreciate you finding the post to which you are referring. Thank you.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Bonnie is all questions but not many answers lol

And none of them are directed to you.

If you answered the questions that were asked of you perhaps you'd be less beligerent.

---

Do you think Northern Ireland has been a failure?

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Can you give examples of this?

Of my opinion? Are you asking why do I think that we haven't decolonised as much as I'd like?

Here's an example below.

we basically borrowed or stole everything else from the Brits.

You are some laugh.

Edit: Sometimes I wonder if people like you, Blanch, Downcow and Timthumb are actually parodying (crypto)unionists of the most spiteful and unreasonable sort to engender sympathy for Irish nationalists/republicans.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Of my opinion? Are you asking why do I think that we haven't decolonised as much as I'd like?

Here's an example below.

That is not an example unless you are proposing we should have sent people like me to 're-education' camps China style.

Give us an example of 'decolonising'

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The complete lack of self-awareness in unionists like you must seem bewildering to any neutral readers of the thread. Unionists so despise their Irish/Nationalist neighbours that they can't bear to look at the native language in public spaces.
a.

Tom I know you misquote and try to mislead other posters.
I said I like to see the Irish language on signs in Roi and also welsh on welsh signs etc.

My quest was around the English language and why Roi always put Derry on signs and never the official.
We all know the answer and the refusal to answer by anyone here reinforces it.

Here’s why
ROI unashamedly take nationalist position on all matters They also know that if they put up Londonderry, the sign would be defaced by their residents thereby exposing the sectarian bigoted attitudes of a significant section of their population. The mask would slip

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's a comparison of Dublin and Belfast. It doesn't answer the question repeatedly put to you.

You have been asked whether Northern Ireland has been a failure. You have singularly failed to answer it. I can only surmise that you're afraid to answer it at this point.

---

Do you think Northern Ireland has been a failure?

Northern Ireland is a success.
Evidence
It has outlasted a 100 year campaign by it’s detractors to remove it from one of the worlds leading economies, against the will of its people.
It has a number of flourishing minorities including nationalists
It has been wooed by a neighbouring country for 100 years and their is even an agreement in place to enable its residents to vote to join that neighbour. Still it’s people say our preference is to stay in the uk
The quality of life in its capital city is far superior, across all measures, to that of the capital city of its nearest neighbour - evidenced independently here https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=United+Kingdom&city1=Dublin&city2=Belfast&tracking=getDispatchComparison

Now Bonnie you are just making a fool of yourself. You have become ‘Billy no mates’ on this thread. I held you in higher esteem until I’ve watched your performance here.
I am now tired watching you squirm since I posted this https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=United+Kingdom&city1=Dublin&city2=Belfast&tracking=getDispatchComparison and can’t see any point on engaging in your childish repetitions.

ittakestwo

Sectarianism is rife in NI which is it's big failure. The two main parties encourage it despite 22 years since the GFA. I would prefer to see NI ruled from London to avoid this but do people in London care?

Kids are still segregated into national and unionist schools (teach them young) and there is no political will to change this. In fact the two main parties would oppose merging of schools which is further more why London should intervene. But this will cost a lot and do they want to invest more in NI which is already running a significant deficit and might not be part of the UK in 20 years?

jm08

ittakestwo wrote: »

Sectarianism is rife in NI which is it's big failure. The two main parties encourage it despite 22 years since the GFA. I would prefer to see NI ruled from London to avoid this but do people in London care?

Kids are still segregated into national and unionist schools (teach them young) and there is no political will to change this. In fact the two main parties would oppose merging of schools which is further more why London should intervene. But this will cost a lot and do they want to invest more in NI which is already running a significant deficit and might not be part of the UK in 20 years?

Isn't the issue that the catholic schools perform much better (9 of the 10 best achieving schools are catholic run schools) than the State schools and they don't want the standard lowered? As well as that, the State schools would probably be stopped providing Irish language courses for example.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Northern Ireland is a success.
Evidence
It has outlasted a 100 year campaign by it’s detractors to remove it from one of the worlds leading economies, against the will of its people.
It has a number of flourishing minorities including nationalists
It has been wooed by a neighbouring country for 100 years and their is even an agreement in place to enable its residents to vote to join that neighbour. Still it’s people say our preference is to stay in the uk
The quality of life in its capital city is far superior, across all measures, to that of the capital city of its nearest neighbour - evidenced independently here https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=United+Kingdom&city1=Dublin&city2=Belfast&tracking=getDispatchComparison

Now Bonnie you are just making a fool of yourself. You have become ‘Billy no mates’ on this thread. I held you in higher esteem until I’ve watched your performance here.
I am now tired watching you squirm since I posted this https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=United+Kingdom&city1=Dublin&city2=Belfast&tracking=getDispatchComparison and can’t see any point on engaging in your childish repetitions.

I've looked up that website to see how it is compiled and seems to be compiled by a Serbian person. It only does data for 3 cities on the island of Ireland - Belfast, Dublin and Cork and in the UK about 5 or 6 and the data is is computer generated.

I think maybe the OECD Index's might be a bit more as they actually do surveys and interviews to compile the ones they do.


Interesting that London has a very poor quality of life.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

They were going to do what they thought was best for them, like the IRA/Dev/Collins and Co. in the south.

Which was not to rise up militarily against those whom they wanted to stay in a union with.

Apart from the obvious question then, what comes next.
You flat out refuse to detail any possible scenarios or your masterplan of how one could have avoided partition if we as a nation said 'No'.

Your refusal is testament to the fact that deep down you admit that partition was inevitable.
Do you disagree? Give us the master plan so?

Had the British stood up to them..ruled democratically and put down Carson, Craig and Bonar Law as forcefully as they did Pearse and Connolly we would IMO have avoided the 100 failure of partition, over 3000 deaths and the ruination of many many live catholic and protestant and republican and unionists.
We would have avoided the ****show of Brexit plunging us into the mess of divineness again.

And the Irish Free State was born because it raised a private army, called the IRA. You may of heard about them. Not only did they raise it, they used them.

Cake, eating.... and all that jazz

Please don't tell me we are back to them going up against the Britsh again!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

We all know the answer and the refusal to answer by anyone here reinforces it.

I answered you...the name is there in English and Irish...Derry and Doire. As mandated by our regulations around signage. Derry is the official name favoured by THE IRISH downcow and perfectly acceptable to use...just as a BBC person using the other official name is acceptable.

The quality of life in its capital city is far superior, across all measures, to that of the capital city of its nearest neighbour - evidenced independently here https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-li...atchComparison

Now Bonnie you are just making a fool of yourself. You have become ‘Billy no mates’ on this thread. I held you in higher esteem until I’ve watched your performance here.
I am now tired watching you squirm since I posted this https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-li...atchComparison and can’t see any point on engaging in your childish repetitions.

Criticism of Numbeo...which the owners describe as 'cool'

In 2012, Columnist Alistair Walsh suggested in an article written for the website Property Observer, that Numbeo's information is based on what people say and should be taken with grain of salt.[9] There is no third party check or audit on the accuracy of data.

Comparison against other international city data sources conducted by Ray Woodcock in 2017 suggested that Numbeo might be inaccurate on a city level, while on a country level it is more accurate.

The bolded bit :D

OECD or UN ratings are where it's at downcow...even if city comparisons had anything to do with the thread title and question.

steddyeddy

It's amazing that people are neglecting the fact that England generally treat Northern Ireland with disregard. Evident by the fact that there will be a border in the Irish sea post Brexit. Amazingly brought about by the DUP.

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Do you not feel objections to Irish language signage are petty? Do you feel they're valid objections?

Do you feel your Britishness is diluted by seeing words like "Torra fy Ngwallt yn Hir" or "Yr Atal Genhedlaeth" about the place?

Do you think Northern Ireland has been a failure for the last century?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if there are people with concerns regarding Irish language signage that must be recognised.
I don`t feel threatened by Welsh signage or song lyrics.Regarding Irish language,I enjoy light hearted Irish songs like `an focal eile`.I know what an `each uisge` is in Scottish folklore,I believe original languages should be encouraged but not forced on people.
NI is`nt a failure imo, although I`m reluctant to make critical comparisons(I think Ireland is a great place North and South)but if I had to I`d say Belfast has outstripped Dublin as the `go to` place on the Island of Ireland now and is viewed(here in England, anyway)as a vibrant,cosmopolitan,successful city.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which was not to rise up militarily against those whom they wanted to stay in a union with.

As I said, they were going to do what they thought was best for them. You seem to have a hard time comprehending the fact that not everyone in Ireland or indeed NI/Ulster is not an Irish Republican.

Had the British stood up to them..

If my auntie had balls, she would be my uncle.
If the British did the dirty work for the IRA you mean?

Again, I love the delicious irony.
British Army fighting the IRA, bad
British Army fighting the Ulster Volunteers, good.

ruled democratically and put down Carson, Craig and Bonar Law as forcefully as they did Pearse and Connolly we would IMO have avoided the 100 failure of partition, over 3000 deaths and the ruination of many many live catholic and protestant and republican and unionists.
We would have avoided the ****show of Brexit plunging us into the mess of divineness again.

Put down Carson, how? Like a dog or a horse? :P

So, your solution to no partition in Ireland.... get the British to go to war with the Ulster Volunteers.....
Again, delicious irony there.

You never told us your own master plan Francie.
Its 1921, Michael Collins and Co. return from the Treaty negotiations, and it is rejected in the Dail....
What next??

Oh, nothing?
Tumbleweed?
Something disengenious about something the British should have done in 1912 but obviously didn't, because well, they didn't?

:D

So, logic concludes, partition was Inveitable, no matter what way you cut it.
Even today, in 2020, even after the PIRA failed campaign of violence, Ireland is still partitioned. That should tell you something Francie.

Please don't tell me we are back to them going up against the Britsh again!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Please don't tell me that Unionists would have just stood down?
Again, the British establishment, military, public, press and body politics was not going to go to war with Unionists in 1912 or 1921. It was NEVER going to happen.
You seem to think that it was a real possibility. The Curuagh mutiny is proof positive that it was never going to happy.

So..what is your masterplan to avoid partition?
Get a time machine and go back to 1912 and whisper in Asquith's ear to incite an invasion of Ulster? Probably more credible than some of the revisionist crap you are spouting here.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

As I said, they were going to do what they thought was best for them. You seem to have a hard time comprehending the fact that not everyone in Ireland or indeed NI/Ulster is not an Irish Republican.

Gas man mark. If they were not going to go to war with the British...then the only option they had was negotiate.

If my auntie had balls, she would be my uncle.
If the British did the dirty work for the IRA you mean?

Again, I love the delicious irony.
British Army fighting the IRA, bad
British Army fighting the Ulster Volunteers, good.




Put down Carson, how? Like a dog or a horse? :P

So, your solution to no partition in Ireland.... get the British to go to war with the Ulster Volunteers.....
Again, delicious irony there.

You never told us your own master plan Francie.
Its 1921, Michael Collins and Co. return from the Treaty negotiations, and it is rejected in the Dail....
What next??

Oh, nothing?
Tumbleweed?
Something disengenious about something the British should have done in 1912 but obviously didn't, because well, they didn't?

You on the other hand just doffed the hat, said nothing and sat idly by as people died. We know mark...partitionists, blame everyone but those who had the responsibility and duty to all the people.

So, logic concludes, partition was Inveitable, no matter what way you cut it.
Even today, in 2020, even after the PIRA failed campaign of violence, Ireland is still partitioned. That should tell you something Francie.




Please don't tell me that Unionists would have just stood down?
Again, the British establishment, military, public, press and body politics was not going to go to war with Unionists in 1912 or 1921. It was NEVER going to happen.
You seem to think that it was a real possibility. The Curuagh mutiny is proof positive that it was never going to happy.

So..what is your masterplan to avoid partition?
Get a time machine and go back to 1912 and whisper in Asquith's ear to incite an invasion of Ulster? Probably more credible than some of the revisionist crap you are spouting here.

Exactly...so why are you playing coy with what I said at the start of this?

The British allowed themselves to be influenced by Unionists and capitulated to them.

That was wrong then and it is wrong now. They did in the knowledge of what was going to happen too...which makes it a criminal abdication.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gas man mark. If they were not going to go to war with the British...then the only option they had was negotiate.

I am pretty sure, like the IRA before them the Ulster Volunteers was prepared to fight for what they thought was right.

You on the other hand just doffed the hat, said nothing and sat idly by as people died.

I wasn't alive in 1921, so the point is mute.
However, if I was, I would not be a fanatic like some of the IRA at time and would realise, like Collins and the Pro-Treaty arm of then SF that the Treaty was at the time the best we could do, and certainly saying 'No', with the risk of a greater war with the Ulster Volunteers was not going to be worth it.
Can you imagine Dev and Collins asking men from Kerry, Tipp and Cork to invade Antrim and Down? It was never going to happen.
There was no large scale public appetite for it and these people would have been voted out of office.

See that is the difference between the IRA of 1920's and 1970's. One was ultimately accountable to the people, the other was a bunch of jumped up would be criminals who had no political mandate from anyone to murder or kill.

We know mark...partitionists, blame everyone but those who had the responsibility and duty to all the people.

Yes, Collins and CO. had a duty to the Irish people who elected them, and starting a war they could not win was a brave and correct decision.

They could on the other hand act like the PIRA and start a 30 years war, which at the end results in a status quo and ultimate surrender of the PIRA. NI still in the hands of the British and under Westminster rule. That ended war well now didn't it. :P:P

Talking about war as if its some guarantee of victory is nonsense. SF of today realised that 30 years ago, yet here you are talking about 'Whatever it took' as if its that simple.

...and of course no master plan from you, just empty rhetoric to send more you men to their deaths.

I will repeat, Parition was inevitable.

Exactly...

So, the tell me, if you agree that the British were not going to fight a war with the Ulster Volunteers, who then could we, in the south avoid partition?
Invade Ulster, I presume?

I will repeat, Parition was inevitable.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

I am pretty sure, like the IRA before them the Ulster Volunteers was prepared to fight for what they thought was right.

And we are back to them fighting the British. :rolleyes:

I wasn't alive in 1921, so the point is mute.
However, if I was, I would not be a fanatic like some of the IRA at time and would realise, like Collins and the Pro-Treaty arm of then SF that the Treaty was at the time the best we could do, and certainly saying 'No', with the risk of a greater war with the Ulster Volunteers was not going to be worth it.
Can you imagine Dev and Collins asking men from Kerry, Tipp and Cork to invade Antrim and Down? It was never going to happen.
There was no large scale public appetite for it and these people would have been voted out of office.

See that is the difference between the IRA of 1920's and 1970's. One was ultimately accountable to the people, the other was a bunch of jumped up would be criminals who had no political mandate from anyone to murder or kill.

[/QUOTE]

Ah I see, we are going to glide over the threat from Britain. Very good.

Why not go completely dis-ingenuous I suppose.

Yes, Collins and CO. had a duty to the Irish people who elected them, and starting a war they could not win was a brave and correct decision.

They could on the other hand act like the PIRA and start a 30 years war, which at the end results in a status quo and ultimate surrender of the PIRA. NI still in the hands of the British and under Westminster rule. That ended war well now didn't it. :P:P

Talking about war as if its some guarantee of victory is nonsense. SF of today realised that 30 years ago, yet here you are talking about 'Whatever it took' as if its that simple.

...and of course no master plan from you, just empty rhetoric to send more you men to their deaths.

I will repeat, Parition was inevitable.





So, the tell me, if you agree that the British were not going to fight a war with the Ulster Volunteers, who then could we, in the south avoid partition?
Invade Ulster, I presume?

I will repeat, Parition was inevitable.

Do you agree that partition happened because the British failed to behave like democrats and threatened the Irish with war, while capitulating to threats from Carson, Craig, Bonar Law etc?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And we are back to them fighting the British.

I see, yet again you fail to give an 'out' or a plan to how we could have avoided parition.

The mere fact you have not given one is evidence enough to show, you don't have one, apart from poor and weak arguments about 'The British should have done something', which is not really an argument, its more of a small-violin complaint.

Ah I see, we are going to glide over the threat from Britain. Very good.

And you would have preferred for more people to die fighting an unwinnable war.
Go figure.

Why not go completely dis-ingenuous I suppose.

Hey, I am not scurrying about the place avoiding basic questions about what exactly entails, 'Whatever it took' to avoid partition. I guess genocide was really on the table if you were in charge. Not really a plan, but hey, its a start

Do you agree that partition happened because the British failed to behave like democrats and threatened the Irish with war, while capitulating to threats from Carson, Craig, Bonar Law etc?

Partition happened because it was inevitable. Its self evident 100 years later.
The British gave the North and the South self-determination on that question. The North decided, democraticly to cede from the Free State and re-join the Union.

The Free state could have invaded, if the public really really wanted it.
They didn't, because the public really really didn't want more death and slaughter for a fight it had no guarantee nor a chance of winning.

Again, I repeat, Partition was inevitable.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

I see, yet again you fail to give an 'out' or a plan to how we could have avoided parition.

The mere fact you have not given one is evidence enough to show, you don't have one, apart from poor and weak arguments about 'The British should have done something', which is not really an argument, its more of a small-violin complaint.








And you would have preferred for more people to die fighting an unwinnable war.
Go figure.



Hey, I am not scurrying about the place avoiding basic questions about what exactly entails, 'Whatever it took' to avoid partition. I guess genocide was really on the table if you were in charge. Not really a plan, but hey, its a start




Partition happened because it was inevitable. Its self evident 100 years later.
The British gave the North and the South self-determination on that question. The North decided, democraticly to cede from the Free State and re-join the Union.

The Free state could have invaded, if the public really really wanted it.
They didn't, because the public really really didn't want more death and slaughter for a fight it had no guarantee nor a chance of winning.

Again, I repeat, Partition was inevitable.

Holy moley.. you have also now blithely ignored that Britain stood ideally by and watched as Unionists changed the voting system.

I know you favour partition but to so abjectly doff the hat and not lay the blame where it belongs is one of the reasons the whole thing went up in the flames many knew it would at the time.
Your whole attitude stinks and that you routinely blame it on one side stinks even more.
'The British gave the north self determination'...never have I read such bull on this site. The British gave the north a s3ctarian bigoted state that tragically had to be overthrown and tge Dublin government had to dragged into taking it's share of responsibility too.
Go read some history...all of it, not just the bias confirming stuff.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

That is not an example unless you are proposing we should have sent people like me to 're-education' camps China style.

Minds can be colonised - like a sort of post-colonial Stockholm Syndrome. You often read the utterances of colonised minds here on boards with dumb statements like 'we'd still be living in mud huts if we hadn't been colonised by the English', or 'we'd be a regional backwater if we didn't speak English', these are not uncommon views founded on fuck all.

Capt'n Midnight

Thankfully NI has moved on. As I've said before most people no longer identify as Unionist or Nationalist. They just want to get on with life. Like they say about Stroke City "I don't care what you call it, as long as you don't tell me what to call it"



People can be as British or Irish or Northern Irish as they want to be and that's brilliant. There's even "I'm British but my cows are Irish" which we may see exporters doing variations of next year.

If you are worried that the numbers don't add up, wait till you hear about the boilers :P


Getting worked up about themums v usums isn't going to put food on the table. Talking about the economy I can't see much good news coming from Westminster. Remember "he who pays the piper calls the tune". Expect a UK wide squeeze on finances and the NHS, and stuff like how DLA is getting replaced by PIP.


There won't be another 99 years unless the economy diversifies or finds a magic loophole with it's EU/UK status.

jm08

[QUOTE=RobMc59;114485430
NI is`nt a failure imo, although I`m reluctant to make critical comparisons(I think Ireland is a great place North and South)but if I had to I`d say Belfast has outstripped Dublin as the `go to` place on the Island of Ireland now and is viewed(here in England, anyway)as a vibrant,cosmopolitan,successful city.[/QUOTE]


You do realise that the people from the south has invested massively in NI. For example, the Titantic Centre was developed by Harcourt Investments which is a Dublin company with Prince Charles step son on the board, presumably to keep the place being burned down on the 12 by the local loyalist yobs.

jh79

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There won't be another 99 years unless the economy diversifies or finds a magic loophole with it's EU/UK status.

The UK has a GDP of over 3 trillion. Ireland's is 330 billion or so. Probably more correct to say there will be another 99 years unless NI diversifies its economy or finds a magic loophole with it's EU/UK status.