United Ireland Poll - please vote

FrancieBrady

6 wrote: »

Not our problem currently. Who pays the bills up there? They are part of the UK who keep them afloat. 10 billion a year.

A kick to touch if ever I seen one.

FrancieBrady

6 wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. I'm taking finances here.

Older people are wealthier, more likely to vote, and will want to protect what they have worked hard for.

By the way by older, I'm not talking pensioners only. People in their 40's/50s/60s who have worked hard and built up some degree of wealth, and stability for them and their families.

In the exit poll after the last election a majority in all of those categories want a border poll.

Bobeagleburger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the exit poll after the last election a majority in all of those categories want a border poll.

Big difference between a border poll, and the reality of the cost of unification.

Bobeagleburger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A kick to touch if ever I seen one.

Simple facts you mean. Not fantasy.

Fr D Maugire

downcow wrote: »

Strange you quote my question but then don’t refer to it.
Here is the question again
“ Why would the british threaten the Irish if they did not get keeping ni, or as many here refer to it the basket case? Doesn’t seem to make sense. Are you sure you are not missing something?”

I didn't ignore your question as it was already answered in my posts, when I pointed out that the idea of partition was worked out between the Unionists and British Government before the treaty was offered to the Irish Representatives and as a way of ensuring it happened, threatened Ireland with immediate war if it was not agreed to.

You seem to think the British were some impartial observers who had no interest in keeping Ireland. They absolutely wanted to keep Ireland for a number of reasons.

1. Strategic importance as they didn't want Ireland to be a potential staging post for potential invaders. This is why they kept the treaty ports.
2. Loosing face, This was still the era of the British Empire, and many Conservatives were Imperialists and the idea of having their nearest colony gain independence would have been seen as huge embarrassment for the British and an inspiration to other Countries.
3. Like as always has been the case, the 'Orange Card' as Randolph Churchill described it was useful to Conservatives when they were needed to prop up the Government(just like for Boris) so Conservatives were always likely to be sympathetic to the whims of Unionists for all the reasons mentioned above.
4. Most British Conservatives of the time simply saw the Irish as inferior so there was always a level of bigotry towards Ireland, so they were on a level footing with Unionists on that one.

Fact was, Britain was losing international standing due to their handling of the Irish problem, especially in the US. As a result, they came up with the compromised treaty in which they appeared to be giving way to Irish demands without losing face completely. The reason NI is now viewed as a basket case in Britain is because, most of the reasons listed are not relevant anymore, apart from the 'Orange Card' one. Other than proving useful to prop up Governments, most Brits couldn't care less.

So how about answering a few of the questions I put to you which you always seem to skip past.

If Scotland as a Country votes for independence, should the parts who vote against be allowed to rescind from Scotland? Is that Democratic when a people are voting as a Country?

If Britain decided they wanted rid of NI, but offered Unionists a new NI state, but with only the Counties of Down and Antrim or refusing that option, handing the whole of NI over to the Republic? What would you choose and would you consider such a choice as Democratic for the Unionist people of NI?

FrancieBrady

6 wrote: »

Big difference between a border poll, and the reality of the cost of unification.

Why would people you say are comfortable with the status quo be wanting to risk changing it?

Sooner or later there has to be some sense made 6. This canny go on. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

The entire UK is now talking about it's break-up. Some interesting points made here about financing in an independent country.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19232356.watch-plaid-cymru-leader-destroys-unionist-deficit-myth-bbc-debate/

Bobeagleburger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would people you say are comfortable with the status quo be wanting to risk changing it?

Sooner or later there has to be some sense made 6. This canny go on. :rolleyes:

Put out a poll with the cost to the Irish tax payer.

Extra taxes are poison for any government. Best of luck to whatever government increases them.

Bobeagleburger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The entire UK is now talking about it's break-up. Some interesting points made here about financing in an independent country.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19232356.watch-plaid-cymru-leader-destroys-unionist-deficit-myth-bbc-debate/

Would be interesting to see it all collapse. England would be fine. Scotland, and Wales not so sure.

Scotland had their chance and blew it. They obviously weren't ready. Maybe another in 10-15 years. Not sure how they'd manage being on their own tbh.

Not sure Wales are even pushing for it. Maybe they are.

BonnieSituation

6 wrote: »

Would be interesting to see it all collapse. England would be fine. Scotland, and Wales not so sure.

Scotland had their chance and blew it. They obviously weren't ready. Maybe another in 10-15 years. Not sure how they'd manage being on their own tbh.

Not sure Wales are even pushing for it. Maybe they are.

You're right. There is absolutely no precedent of any country of Scotland's size being independent. They wouldn't have a hope.

Bobeagleburger

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You're right. There is absolutely no precedent of any country of Scotland's size being independent. They wouldn't have a hope.

I neither said they'd mange badly or poorly.

I'm sure they would have some hope, so I definitely wouldn't be as negative as you about it.

BonnieSituation

6 wrote: »

I neither said they'd mange badly or poorly.

I'm sure they would have some hope, so I definitely wouldn't be as negative as you about it.

Self-awareness isn't a strong suit for partitionists, is it?

Bobeagleburger

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Self-awareness isn't a strong suit for partitionists, is it?

Are you a partitionist? What's your main objections to a UI? A UI is coming for sure. May take a while due to costs but it's definitely coming.

BonnieSituation

6 wrote: »

Are you a partitionist? What's your main objections to a UI? A UI is coming for sure. May take a while due to costs but it's definitely coming.

Is it though? I mean, taxes might go up and as a result it may never come.

Now is not the time etc.

tom1ie

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is it though? I mean, taxes might go up and as a result it may never come.

Now is not the time etc.

Glad to see you’ve come to your senses bonnie.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Self-awareness isn't a strong suit for partitionists, is it?

tom1ie wrote: »

Glad to see you’ve come to your senses bonnie.

See above.

tom1ie

BonnieSituation wrote: »

See above.

Lol!

Bobeagleburger

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is it though? I mean, taxes might go up and as a result it may never come.

Now is not the time etc.

It'll come. The cost will probably delay it though, so you're probably correct with your last point.

Monkey arris

It will never be the 'right time' for those who like to pay it lip service when it suits.
When Ireland is an economic basket case again won't be the 'right time' either. We should do it between recessions.

downcow

Monkey arris wrote: »

Any Irish language road signs taking a piss in doorways or goading unionists?
One is a practical sign giving direction in two languages. The other, groups of people celebrating the battle of the Boyne when they fought their neigbours. The anti social behaviour was stopped. Can you clarify the similarities between these people and a road sign, beyond basic tit for tat?
All goods sold in the U.S. must include Spanish literature. I don't even see the Republican's fighting that, although there likely are a few similarly minded.

Unfortunately they have both been used by unsavoury groups to further their cause resulting in both being seen as belonging to one group.
The outcome is that the both mark territory
I see little difference in the effect of each

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionists are still attempting to have parades where they are not wanted and refusing to engage with the Parades Commission - deriding and denigrating the very commission that has made you look good against your will.

Stop trying to make a silk purse for yourselves. Your behaviour as a community in attempts to normalise has and continues to be abysmal.

Every time some says that parades, flags, etc should not be where they are not wanted, I ask how you determine when they are not wanted? In fairness to you, you are the only one ever answers but you give the same answer every time ie the parades commission decide when they are not wanted.
You can’t have it both ways then. That means there are no parades where they are not wanted.
It is that simple by your measure.
My measure would not be as simple

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Every time some says that parades, flags, etc should not be where they are not wanted, I ask how you determine when they are not wanted? In fairness to you, you are the only one ever answers but you give the same answer every time ie the parades commission decide when they are not wanted.
You can’t have it both ways then. That means there are no parades where they are not wanted.
It is that simple by your measure.
My measure would not be as simple

I don't determine it, the people living in their homes do and make representations to the commission.

Monkey arris

downcow wrote: »

Unfortunately they have both been used by unsavoury groups to further their cause resulting in both being seen as belonging to one group.
The outcome is that the both mark territory
I see little difference in the effect of each

You see little difference in how you perceive the issues being used?

A sign in Irish and English is not comparable to a belligerent march designed to goad members of the public based on their religion or politics.
I'll agree it gets to the heart of the matter. Petty spiteful people using issues to further their selfish causes. Maybe we should look at each issue on a case by case and not a tit for tat basis? Shouting down the Irish language or signage because marches, isn't very mature.

lurleen lumpkin

downcow wrote: »

Every time some says that parades, flags, etc should not be where they are not wanted, I ask how you determine when they are not wanted?

The flags and mini parade in my village in Antrim are not wanted by me.

downcow

Monkey arris wrote: »

You see little difference in how you perceive the issues being used?

A sign in Irish and English is not comparable to a belligerent march designed to goad members of the public based on their religion or politics.
I'll agree it gets to the heart of the matter. Petty spiteful people using issues to further their selfish causes. Maybe we should look at each issue on a case by case and not a tit for tat basis? Shouting down the Irish language or signage because marches, isn't very mature.

The vast majority of parades and bandsmen are absolutely not to goad people. It’s people celebrating their culture and they are not interested in those not interested. The are a very small number of people and parades which may have the intention of getting one over on the ‘other side’
I could retype the above and replace band with Irish sign and it would all be equally true.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

The vast majority of parades and bandsmen are absolutely not to goad people. It’s people celebrating their culture and they are not interested in those not interested. The are a very small number of people and parades which may have the intention of getting one over on the ‘other side’
I could retype the above and replace band with Irish sign and it would all be equally true.

A sign is passive downcow...anything it 'provokes' is in your own head.

downcow

lurleen lumpkin wrote: »

The flags and mini parade in my village in Antrim are not wanted by me.

Great thanks lurleen, you have broken ranks with Francie and co.

Now can you help me understand what is meant when people on here say ‘parades should not go where they are not wanted’?
Here’s some suggestions
If you were the only person in Antrim who didn’t want it
If 49% didn’t want it
If 51% didn’t want it
Or is it the number of people on the parade route as opposed to the town that should determine it.
The statement ‘wherever they are not wanted’ is meaningless if we can’t determine it?

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Every time some says that parades, flags, etc should not be where they are not wanted, I ask how you determine when they are not wanted? In fairness to you, you are the only one ever answers but you give the same answer every time ie the parades commission decide when they are not wanted.
You can’t have it both ways then. That means there are no parades where they are not wanted.
It is that simple by your measure.
My measure would not be as simple

You can't have what both ways?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A sign is passive downcow...anything it 'provokes' is in your own head.

Nonsense.
What does that mean anyhow?
Is a flag passive? is a monument passive? is a football jersey passive?

lurleen lumpkin

downcow wrote: »

Great thanks lurleen, you have broken ranks with Francie and co.

Now can you help me understand what is meant when people on here say ‘parades should not go where they are not wanted’?
Here’s some suggestions
If you were the only person in Antrim who didn’t want it
If 49% didn’t want it
If 51% didn’t want it
Or is it the number of people on the parade route as opposed to the town that should determine it.
The statement ‘wherever they are not wanted’ is meaningless if we can’t determine it?

Nobody should have to tolerate, yet alone want, a supremacist bigoted parade anywhere near them.