United Ireland Poll - please vote

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The border was fortified primarily because of border Unionist demands.

There was actually very few if any paramilitaries caught going through it, it was an expensive failure and only made the situation worse in many respects.

I remember the army on the border, and I remember why they were placed there, and it was primarily to stop PIRA & INLA terrorists coming across the border, committing a crime, then fleeing back across the border to relative safety, hence the British army was deployed along the border to try and stop them.

briany

Ultimately, there is no chance of a border poll returning a United Ireland vote without a dramatic downturn in the economic fortunes of NI while the Republic does significantly better. There are many Nationalists in NI with a small 'n'. People always talk about how big the civil service is in NI and what a big employer it is, and how this is subsidised by the UK treasury - well, if you're a Nationalist working in that civil sector, your job could be gone if you vote for a UI because you have absolutely no way of knowing what a new government would plan on doing with those jobs and whether it could even continue to subsidise all those jobs if it wanted to. If you lose your job, and lose everything else as a result, I doubt sleeping on the street would be made any more comfortable by the warm and fuzzy feeling of living in a UI.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I remember the army on the border, and I remember why they were placed there, and it was primarily to stop PIRA & INLA terrorists coming across the border, committing a crime, then fleeing back across the border to relative safety, hence the British army was deployed along the border to try and stop them.

It was a colossal failure then and only exacerbated tensions. The British Army fortified the border after a campaign of pressure by border Unionists, the same arguments were made then as were made with Brexit - i.e. it would have no effect and would only deepen the crisis.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was a colossal failure then and only exacerbated tensions. The British Army fortified the border after a campaign of pressure by border Unionists, the same arguments were made then as were made with Brexit - i.e. it would have no effect and would only deepen the crisis.

Colossal failure? Francie, we will never know how many bomb attempts were thwarted by army checkpoints, we will never know how many lives were saved, so I'm surprised that you say it was a failure. I agree that since the Troubles ended there is no need for any army, be it the British army, Irish army or an EU peace keeping force to keep the border closed, no need at all these days ....

I suspect though that customs cameras are needed to monitor cross border EU-UK trade, post Brexit.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The border was fortified primarily because of border Unionist demands.

There was actually very few if any paramilitaries caught going through it, it was an expensive failure and only made the situation worse in many respects.

Any 'country' is expected to pay it's way, the people of northern Ireland will contribute to the 'cost' of running the country as a whole, just like the people of the south, east and west do. Do you refer to them as a 'cost'?

again your stating as fact something that you and every one else knows to be a lie

talk about trying to manipulate history for your own ends , yet another reason why no one wants an all Ireland sf party in control

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Colossal failure? Francie, we will never know how many bomb attempts were thwarted by army checkpoints, we will never know how many lives were saved, so I'm surprised that you say it was a failure. I agree that since the Troubles ended there is no need for any army, be it the British army, Irish army or an EU peace keeping force to keep the border closed, no need at all these days ....

I suspect though that customs cameras are needed to monitor cross border EU-UK trade, post Brexit.

The minute a fixed border installation goes in, what do you think happens?

Another way through a porous undefendable border is found. You don't believe they chance their arms getting through do you? Really?

You don't seem to know the history. The border fortification caused unnecessary hassle, recruited for the various paramilitaries and did little to stop the violence. It caused more than it stopped more than likely.

Hamsterchops

Not sure where you're going with this Francie?

Don't know why you're arguing against what had to be done during the Troubles (re security and the prevention of terrorism).

Unless you wanted to just leave he border wide open and give the attackers free range to come and go across the border as and when they pleased?

You agree that would have been madness.

If the checkpoints had not been in place along the border many more would have died in gun and bomb attacks (obviously).

I'm leaving it there Francie as I'm not sure what angle you are trying to put on this :cool:

Seathrun66

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Colossal failure? Francie, we will never know how many bomb attempts were thwarted by army checkpoints, we will never know how many lives were saved, so I'm surprised that you say it was a failure. I agree that since the Troubles ended there is no need for any army, be it the British army, Irish army or an EU peace keeping force to keep the border closed, no need at all these days ....

I suspect though that customs cameras are needed to monitor cross border EU-UK trade, post Brexit.

The most porous supra-national border in the world. 208 official crossings and over 100 more unofficial. More crossing points than on the entire eastern side of the EU border with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Anyone wanting to get through can get through irrespective of checkpoints.

If any attacks were stopped you'll have records of arrests on the border. And the prosecutions that arose. any links?

The border ain't returning, a United Ireland is inevitable and Brexit has hastened that to happen by the end of this decade. It'll be costly but the UK will be required to shell out some initial cash for the transformation. The EU, US and other will also invest heavily and a United Ireland is an attractive place for companies to locate.

Whoever thinks this isn't happening is deluded. Polling on both sides of the border suggesting it's very close now in the north and over 70% pro-unity in the Republic. The best thing we can do is get our governments to make preparations for the inevitable.

blanch152

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The most porous supra-national border in the world. 208 official crossings and over 100 more unofficial. More crossing points than on the entire eastern side of the EU border with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Anyone wanting to get through can get through irrespective of checkpoints.

If any attacks were stopped you'll have records of arrests on the border. And the prosecutions that arose. any links?

The border ain't returning, a United Ireland is inevitable and Brexit has hastened that to happen by the end of this decade. It'll be costly but the UK will be required to shell out some initial cash for the transformation. The EU, US and other will also invest heavily and a United Ireland is an attractive place for companies to locate.

Whoever thinks this isn't happening is deluded. Polling on both sides of the border suggesting it's very close now in the north and over 70% pro-unity in the Republic. The best thing we can do is get our governments to make preparations for the inevitable.

More unicorns and rainbows. Who will require the UK to shell out some initial cost for the transformation? The British public will refuse to do so, and any party looking to domestic support will understand that fairly quickly.

The delusionary nature of the posts that think a united Ireland is simple and straightforward continue to mystify me.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Not sure where you're going with this Francie?

Don't know why you're arguing against what had to be done during the Troubles (re security and the prevention of terrorism).

Unless you wanted to just leave he border wide open and give the attackers free range to come and go across the border as and when they pleased?

You agree that would have been madness.

If the checkpoints had not been in place along the border many more would have died in gun and bomb attacks (obviously).

I'm leaving it there Francie as I'm not sure what angle you are trying to put on this :cool:

You seem to have gotten annoyed because I challenged somebody who claimed that the border was fortified because of the IRA.
It wasn't, it was fortified after local Unionists pressured for it. Unionism wants a physical divide to this day...see Brexit and it's aftermath...whether there is a threat from the IRA or not.
There is more nuance to it than what you are alluding to. As another poster said, nobody with an ounce of strategic knowledge of guerrilla warfare would propose that particular border be sealed...it cannot (and wasn't) be done.

Junkyard Tom

You could plot a clear progression from the Unionists/Partitionists.

Several years ago: 'never going to happen'.

About half a decade ago: 'not going to happen in our lifetimes anyway'.

Last couple of years: 'not ready for this it's decades away yet'.

Last year or two: 'we can't afford it'.


It's like they're going through the Kübler-Ross stages of grief.

It's mildly amusing watching them squirm.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You could plot a clear progression from the Unionists/Partitionists.

Several years ago: 'never going to happen'.

About half a decade ago: 'not going to happen in our lifetimes anyway'.

Last couple of years: 'not ready for this it's decades away yet'.

Last year or two: 'we can't afford it'.


It's like they're going through the Kübler-Ross stages of grief.

It's mildly amusing watching them squirm.

The most fanciful wishful thinking I have ever read.
How many times were we told UI was imminent. Gerry even told us it would happen by 2016. When the hierarchy of the ira knew their community would stand for no more sectarian killing and huge numbers of their members had given up and were working for the brits, they agreed to the gfa as a face-saving exercise. Conor, Martin, Gerry, etc have facilitated british rule here since.
Ni identity gets stronger and stronger year on year.
....but sure if Tom is happy it’s a win win

FrancieBrady

2016 will be seen as the pivotal year in achieving a UI just as 1916 was the pivotal year in gaining independence here.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

2016 will be seen as the pivotal year in achieving a UI just as 1916 was the pivotal year in gaining independence here.

Lol. You do know Francie it has passed

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Lol. You do know Francie it has passed

Yes, I do.
Do you understand what a 'pivotal year' on the road to something is?

Seathrun66

blanch152 wrote: »

More unicorns and rainbows. Who will require the UK to shell out some initial cost for the transformation? The British public will refuse to do so, and any party looking to domestic support will understand that fairly quickly.

The delusionary nature of the posts that think a united Ireland is simple and straightforward continue to mystify me.

UK administrative obligations that will reach beyond a period of handover. A basic understanding of international law with rectify your lack of comprehension.

nothing straightforward about a united Ireland but it's coming. Polling and demographics ensure that. Some twists and turns but inevitable, hence the Loyalist anxiety. See also Apartheid South Africa in its death throes. Burying your head in the sand ain't clever.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Conor, Martin, Gerry, etc have facilitated british rule here since.

They have moved political power away from London to Ireland and now the EU where what Ireland says goes. When the DUP were misbehaving themselves a former senior Provisional IRA man shut down the devolved government of the north of Ireland and the British let the place marinade in its own dysfunction rather than step in to administer direct rule.

If this is your Unionist 'victory' over them'uns then I welcome more wins for Unionism in the future.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They have moved political power away from London to Ireland and now the EU where what Ireland says goes. When the DUP were misbehaving themselves a former senior Provisional IRA man shut down the devolved government of the north of Ireland and the British let the place marinade in its own dysfunction rather than step in to administer direct rule.

If this is your Unionist 'victory' over them'uns then I welcome more wins for Unionism in the future.

I don’t need wins over ‘ themuns’. I don’t know why you are so infatuated with unionists?
I am just happy that more and more small n nationalists are vying into Northern Ireland.
If I was a die hard republican I would be more than a little pessimistic. So I am glad for you that you remain optimistic.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I don’t need wins over ‘ themuns’. I don’t know why you are so infatuated with unionists?
I am just happy that more and more small n nationalists are vying into Northern Ireland.
If I was a die hard republican I would be more than a little pessimistic. So I am glad for you that you remain optimistic.

The Northern Irish identity is an identity of convenience. For instance it is currently being used by Unionists disillusioned by the mess their political leaders have made since the pivotal year of 2016 and Brexit.

It is not one identity either, it is two. A 'Northern Irishness' that means you are Irish, and one that means you are British.

It means very little in the context of a border poll.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Northern Irish identity is an identity of convenience. For instance it is currently being used by Unionists disillusioned by the mess their political leaders have made since the pivotal year of 2016 and Brexit.

It is not one identity either, it is two. A 'Northern Irishness' that means you are Irish, and one that means you are British.

It means very little in the context of a border poll.

Haha 2016. I have regarded myself as first and foremost Northern Irish since the age of understanding. I might have used different words like ulsterman in the 70s but since late 80s I have used the term Northern Irish to describe myself. Maybe you only heard it in 2016 lol Many many Catholics have been using it since shortly after the gfa.
And of course I am still fully british. It’s the same as being English.

I would say that rather than a term of convenience as you suggest. I suggest it is a term that is quite inconvenient for republicans hehe

blanch152

Seathrun66 wrote: »

UK administrative obligations that will reach beyond a period of handover. A basic understanding of international law with rectify your lack of comprehension.

nothing straightforward about a united Ireland but it's coming. Polling and demographics ensure that. Some twists and turns but inevitable, hence the Loyalist anxiety. See also Apartheid South Africa in its death throes. Burying your head in the sand ain't clever.

Maybe you could enlighten me on the relevant international law, particularly the enforcement of such.

There is no international law that would force to UK to contribute anything to a future united Ireland.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Northern Irish identity is an identity of convenience. For instance it is currently being used by Unionists disillusioned by the mess their political leaders have made since the pivotal year of 2016 and Brexit.

It is not one identity either, it is two. A 'Northern Irishness' that means you are Irish, and one that means you are British.

It means very little in the context of a border poll.

Again, this attempt to force identity on others is a tactic of exclusionary nationalism.

I have met plenty of people, especially those under 40, who claim to be neither Irish nor British, but Northern Irish. It is a relatively new identity, but the only growing identity in Northern Ireland.

There are elements of Northern Irish society and culture that closely mirror the rest of the UK, but other elements that are closer to the rest of Ireland. Given that you have Cornish identity, Scousers, Yorkshiremen etc., within England, what is surprising or impossible about an emerging Northern Irish identity.

The denial of the Northern Irish identity is that fatal flaw in the nationalist ideology that will bring them down, in the same way that the belief the rest of the UK wants them is bringing down Unionism.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Haha 2016. I have regarded myself as first and foremost Northern Irish since the age of understanding. I might have used different words like ulsterman in the 70s but since late 80s I have used the term Northern Irish to describe myself. Maybe you only heard it in 2016 lol Many many Catholics have been using it since shortly after the gfa.
And of course I am still fully british. It’s the same as being English.

I would say that rather than a term of convenience as you suggest. I suggest it is a term that is quite inconvenient for republicans hehe

It is two identities and it is NOT a cohesive group.

It's like the old joke about the fella being told somebody is a Jew, and he says, 'Yeh, but is he a catholic Jew or a Protestant one'.

Those clinging to the idea that a NI identity is going to save them come a UI vote are doing just that...'clinging'.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, this attempt to force identity on others is a tactic of exclusionary nationalism.

I have met plenty of people, especially those under 40, who claim to be neither Irish nor British, but Northern Irish. It is a relatively new identity, but the only growing identity in Northern Ireland.

There are elements of Northern Irish society and culture that closely mirror the rest of the UK, but other elements that are closer to the rest of Ireland. Given that you have Cornish identity, Scousers, Yorkshiremen etc., within England, what is surprising or impossible about an emerging Northern Irish identity.

The denial of the Northern Irish identity is that fatal flaw in the nationalist ideology that will bring them down, in the same way that the belief the rest of the UK wants them is bringing down Unionism.

Where did I 'deny' a NI identity?

I am fully aware of it, and am as entitled as you are to interpret it. The 'exclusionary' person is yourself.

Hamsterchops

If a vote on a United Ireland were to take place this year which way would it go?

Landslide UI vote
Landslide UK vote

Marginal 51% UI vote
Marginal 51% UK vote

Healthy 63% UI vote
Healthy 63% UK vote

Other?

All in the context of this year.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

2016 will be seen as the pivotal year in achieving a UI just as 1916 was the pivotal year in gaining independence here.

I was told in 1981 by a leading republican that demographic changes meant that we would see a united Ireland by the end of the century. I forgot to ask him which century.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I 'deny' a NI identity?

I am fully aware of it, and am as entitled as you are to interpret it. The 'exclusionary' person is yourself.

You called it an identity of convenience.

It is not. You are probably too old to understand what is happening in Northern Ireland and too caught up in the fights of previous generations. Your era is passing. While you celebrate the rightful demise of unionism, you cannot see the decline in exclusionary nationalism that is happening under your nose.

The younger generations like their soccer team, but they also like the Commonwealth games, they support their county in All-Irelands, they watch the all-island rugby team, but they also support the UK Olympic team. That is just in sport, but it is an all-embracing yet separate identity. They want the trappings of Britishness but also accept their Irishness. That is what makes them Northern Irish, neither British nor Irish, but subsuming both.

Get used to it.

Bobeagleburger

The current trouble up there shows a UI is still a long way away. Many decades imo.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You called it an identity of convenience.

It is not. You are probably too old to understand what is happening in Northern Ireland and too caught up in the fights of previous generations. Your era is passing. While you celebrate the rightful demise of unionism, you cannot see the decline in exclusionary nationalism that is happening under your nose.

The younger generations like their soccer team, but they also like the Commonwealth games, they support their county in All-Irelands, they watch the all-island rugby team, but they also support the UK Olympic team. That is just in sport, but it is an all-embracing yet separate identity. They want the trappings of Britishness but also accept their Irishness. That is what makes them Northern Irish, neither British nor Irish, but subsuming both.

Get used to it.

Too old?
I remember fervently supporting a friend who was competing in the Commonwealth Games, cheering Northern Ireland beating Spain in the World Cup, Mary Peters in the Olympic Games.

Do you agree that it is two separate identities and that they would vote differently in a border poll?

Seathrun66

downcow wrote: »

Haha 2016. I have regarded myself as first and foremost Northern Irish since the age of understanding. I might have used different words like ulsterman in the 70s but since late 80s I have used the term Northern Irish to describe myself. Maybe you only heard it in 2016 lol Many many Catholics have been using it since shortly after the gfa.
And of course I am still fully british. It’s the same as being English.

I would say that rather than a term of convenience as you suggest. I suggest it is a term that is quite inconvenient for republicans hehe

All terms that are irrelevant in the context of a border poll. 50% plus 1.

Before and after said poll you're free to describe yourself as you wish.