Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

Post 1741

Somebody who constantly wants to make the actions of two parties the same, has got an agenda.

The fact is, the two situations are not the same, something you cannot deny.

The GFA worked because of the huge mandate it received via referenda both sides of the border. Any attempts to replace it without comparable mandate are doomed to fail I'd reckon.

A deep irony in all your calls to respect the wishes of the people of NI when you're arguing against Unification, yet when it suits you seem to be advocating cutting them out of a fundamental decision on how they're governed right now.

I would actually be in favour of some degree of reform of the GFA, though certainly not by British and Irish governments, over the heads of the people of NI.

Any reform should be aimed at getting things working in a sustainable manner right now. I'd be very wary that those of a certain view would like to abuse that to try and insert things like supermajority clauses for Unification, which I suspect is the primary reason reform is such a hot topic in certain quarters. Attempting to remove the people of NI from how that reform looks does little to assuage those concerns.

I'd agree with you on this, Downcow. Ironic that time and time again, mainstream Unionism continues to trust the Tories to have their best interests at heart, and Nationalists expect Labour to somehow be worse for Unionism.

Never Trust a Tory continues to be sterling advice.

As expected, a view based on something you heard down the pub. In contrast to the reasoning given at the time by those involved as shown in the links provided.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the two major sectarian parties both like the current system because it allows them to throw childish tantrums and throw babyfood at each other. They will oppose all meaningful attempts at change.

A first step would be the implementation of the 2022 Alliance Party manifesto proposals on institutional change.

Francie I know the statement well. Are you denying that the red line sf put down was Arlene stepping down. Please don’t send me searching for evidence if you know this already.

…..and that’s quite a spake by you to say all those issues were fixed in a year. That means you think the dup moved to behaving in an exemplary fashion, in the eyes of the shinners.

maybe you will also tell us in concise bullet points what was achieved by 3 years out that enabled return?

As I thought.

I knew you thought you had a 'gotcha' when you asked me 'how SF fixed it'.

Whiich wasn't what I said at all.

I said they (the coalition of SF/DUP) fixed it by negotiation and the DUP backroom people welched on that agreement too (see Eamon Mallie link)

Nowhere did I say they fixed 'all the issues' that is plainly not the case. They fixed it to allow powersharing to resume.

I have linked to Adams (the party leader at the time) giving the reasons for pulling out. Here it is again:

You go right ahead ignoring the 'and' if it suits you.

You can have your view of what he said, you are entitled to that.

What you cannot have is the claim it was just about RHI...it wasn't.

That's how long it took to get the DUP back to where they were after a year - agreeing via negotiation to restore powersharing. (see Eamon Mallie link) Here is the draft agreement the Taoiseach and UK Prime Minster were on their way to endorse and do the photo opportunites.

All I can do is back up my claims with links and quotes from party leaders at the time.

If they didn't say these things you need to prove they didn't.

P.S. The 'details' of the agreement to go back in are different to claiming a deal was done. You are, like blanch, entitled to your view of those details and what was achieved/not achieved. The fact is though that a deal was negotiated and later welched on.

I know you answered none of my questions. But here is the key one again, on its own, so as none of us can get confused

‘maybe you will also tell us in concise bullet points what was achieved by 3 years out that enabled return?’

Should calm a few nerves about the cost of a UI.

Soon as you start pushing the the north and south economies together inside the EU the boats start to rise.

They fixed powersharing downcow.

What is so hard to understand here?

I said nothing about what was achieved. Again, that is a personal interpretation that has zero relevance.

I haven't seen any complaints from SF about the deal, so I persume they were happy with what it achieved for them.

Partition failed = reason to end partition.

Encourage all island economy inside the EU = the ^ above is not the economic problem partitionists and Unionists think it is.