Prime Time special on a United Ireland

Godge · 10-11-2015 11:28am

alaimacerc wrote: »

But the trouble with that line of reasoning is that it's making wildly optimistic assumptions in both directions. That Irish people (N&S) are misty-eyed romantic nationalists that'll vote for unity despite it making them significantly financially worse off in the medium term. And despite the fact they keep saying they won't. And that people in "GB" are flint-eyed dispassionate bean-counters. The UK/British/English nationalist nonsense we hear in relation to the EU fairly quickly dispels that idea, I think.

Excellent point that the supporters of unity would want to consider.

Jawgap · 10-11-2015 11:40am

alaimacerc wrote: »

The "Jocks" wouldn't be so much "indifferent" as "hotly split on sectarian lines". In a way perhaps more similar to NI than even is the RoI.

....

Perhaps in the Glasgow and to a lesser degree in Edinburgh, but the further north you go the less I've found they're that bothered.

alaimacerc · 10-11-2015 11:48am

Godge wrote: »

As I have repeatedly pointed out, a united Ireland will cost more than the current subvention, so why would Britain agree to pay more to lose territory? It does not make sense at any level.

How much it costs depends how much one dispenses with the more lavish "real republic" stuff, and falls back on "frugal comfort". If you simply folded NI into the existing RoI and its level of public services, it'd cost less.

But that's obviously not the way SF (in particular, as self-identified leading advocates for a UI) is seeking to sell it. Right now Pádraig Mac Lochlainn is on R1 telling us that the country being a republic means recognising diversity, which means an acre of land for every Traveller that wants one. Very evidently there's a tension between the two lines of rhetoric, when it comes to squaring the finances.

But as far as the UK's interests are concerned: it estimates that NI is presently costing it €10bn a year. (As noted, SF massages this down to €3bn, mainly by ignoring an entire category of cost, and saying "ah sure we'd borrow the rest".) I'm not sure how long "many, many years" is, but let's assume it's 20. If you could get rid of NI for less than €100bn (let's say), you could argue that the (r)UK exchequer is better off in the long run.

Of course, all this depends what one imagines NI's long-term prospects to be, whether as part of the RoI or in the UK. Which accomplishes "normalisation" more effectively, and what's the economic knock-on of either. Doesn't help that obviously there will be actors seeking to obstruct normalisation, in either direction.

alaimacerc · 10-11-2015 11:53am

Jawgap wrote: »

Perhaps in the Glasgow and to a lesser degree in Edinburgh, but the further north you go the less I've found they're that bothered.

Stipulated. But the Central Belt is where the vast majority of the population is.

Of course there's also another Catholic/Protestant isocline about halfway up the Western Isles, left over from the previous major wave of sectarian conflict, but I don't think that has quite the same implications these days.

Fr Tod Umptious · 10-11-2015 1:30pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Any one of a number of events could put this on the agenda. Don't get carried away, this was a poll of 1000 people.
A Brexit or SF gaining a share of power in the South would precipitate a very serious discussion of this issue.

I love it when this line gets thrown out by people when a poll shows something they don't want to see.

1,000 or so is the sample size I have always seen used for opinion polls in this country.
Including the ones in the past few that have shown increased support for SF in the Republic.

feargale · 11-11-2015 3:24am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Stipulated. But the Central Belt is where the vast majority of the population is.

Of course there's also another Catholic/Protestant isocline about halfway up the Western Isles, left over from the previous major wave of sectarian conflict, but I don't think that has quite the same implications these days.

Benbecula is 50/50. South of it is RC, north of it is Protestant, largely wee free. While one is expected to respect the boundaries there is little or no personal antagonism in the Highlands arising from religion. It's actually a fascinating scenario, given the strength of belief. Charles Kennedy was Catholic, but there probably wouldn't have been enough RCs in his constituency to save his deposit. Flora MacDonald, the young pretender's saviour, was a Presbyterian, who, incidentally, got no thanks from Charlie afterwards.

Happyman42 · 11-11-2015 10:09am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I love it when this line gets thrown out by people when a poll shows something they don't want to see.

1,000 or so is the sample size I have always seen used for opinion polls in this country.
Including the ones in the past few that have shown increased support for SF in the Republic.

I have already said that the 'poll' is in line with how I thought it would be. The time isn't right now, any fool can see and understand that. The leading questions were silly and pointless.

The figures for 'those who would like to see a UI in their lifetime' are the very encouraging ones for me. Much as some would like it, they are the reason that this issue will not go to the back burner.
I do believe that we will see one of the game changing events within the next 10 to 20 years. Either a Brexit, a dilution/break-up of the UK, SF coming to power in the south, or the subvention decreasing to the point were NI will have to face up to the reality of it's failure as an entity.

Jawgap · 11-11-2015 10:27am

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have already said that the 'poll' is in line with how I thought it would be. The time isn't right now, any fool can see and understand that. The leading questions were silly and pointless.

The figures for 'those who would like to see a UI in their lifetime' are the very encouraging ones for me. Much as some would like it, they are the reason that this issue will not go to the back burner.
I do believe that we will see one of the game changing events within the next 10 to 20 years. Either a Brexit, a dilution/break-up of the UK, SF coming to power in the south, or the subvention decreasing to the point were NI will have to face up to the reality of it's failure as an entity.

It's not encouraging, it's not discouraging.

Ask 1000 Shamrock Rovers fans if they'd like to see Rovers win the Champions League in their lifetime and you'll get a similar if not higher level of positive responses - it doesn't mean they think it likely, or that they'd be willing to fork over higher ticket prices to see it come about - it's simply an aspiration.

There may well be game changing events, but there'll also be more subtle ones too - the demographics for example. Every passing year moves the Troubles a year away in history and brings more people into the electorate for whom the Troubles are something to be read about on a few dull afternoons in history classes. Sure there'll be a few vociferous, indoctrinated ones, but no one will really care to listen to them.

The main issue SF have is that the current leadership will be gone in two electoral cycles (assuming the Dails run full term) - then what? There'll be the inevitable ideological shift that occurs in all revolutionary movements when the war time leaders yield inevitably to the technocrats.

Happyman42 · 11-11-2015 10:39am

Jawgap wrote: »

It's not encouraging, it's not discouraging.

Ask 1000 Shamrock Rovers fans if they'd like to see Rovers win the Champions League in their lifetime and you'll get a similar if not higher level of positive responses - it doesn't mean they think it likely, or that they'd be willing to fork over higher ticket prices to see it come about - it's simply an aspiration.

Ridiculous analogy given that winning the CL is but a momentary pleasure, but ask them would they be willing to put up with some pain (relative to the prize) and I am sure there would be a core who would.

There may well be game changing events, but there'll also be more subtle ones too - the demographics for example. Every passing year moves the Troubles a year away in history and brings more people into the electorate for whom the Troubles are something to be read about on a few dull afternoons in history classes. Sure there'll be a few vociferous, indoctrinated ones, but no one will really care to listen to them.

In our history the partition of the island has never gone away for a significant time. I see nothing to suggest that the issues caused by it will go away. Historical perspectives can sometimes elevate the image of revolutionaries. Look what happened to the men and women of 1916 and how some can miraculously block out the realities of what they did or were involved in.
So many things can change in people's outlooks, is the point. It doesn't necessarily follow that it will be to your opinion or outlook.

The main issue SF have is that the current leadership will be gone in two electoral cycles (assuming the Dails run full term) - then what? There'll be the inevitable ideological shift that occurs in all revolutionary movements when the war time leaders yield inevitably to the technocrats.

I think that is something that will happen too, as it does anywhere in post conflict times. Will it dilute the desire for a UI?
Not in my opinion anyway, and TD's represent the voices of their supporters ultimately, they may diverge but that would be electoral suicide eventually if their support base doesn't go with them.

Quin_Dub · 11-11-2015 10:54am

Jawgap wrote: »

The main issue SF have is that the current leadership will be gone in two electoral cycles (assuming the Dails run full term) - then what? There'll be the inevitable ideological shift that occurs in all revolutionary movements when the war time leaders yield inevitably to the technocrats.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think that is something that will happen too, as it does anywhere in post conflict times. Will it dilute the desire for a UI?
Not in my opinion anyway, and TD's represent the voices of their supporters ultimately, they may diverge but that would be electoral suicide eventually if their support base doesn't go with them.

This is the key piece for SF though...

How much of their "new" support that they've picked up over the last number of years support them for their republican ideals and how many support them as being a left wing alternative to FF/FG without any firmly held opinions on a UI?

No question that the traditional "core" support of SF would be strong supporters of UI , but I'm not altogether convinced that the recent additions would hold anything like the same level of conviction..

So as SF grow their support-base are they diluting the strength of their core republican ideals?

Equally I don't know that Mary-Lou and the rest of the "next generation" of SF TD's would so vehemently hold on to the struggle for a UI in the absence of the current leadership 7-10 years from now...

Happyman42 · 11-11-2015 11:06am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the key piece for SF though...

How much of their "new" support that they've picked up over the last number of years support them for their republican ideals and how many support them as being a left wing alternative to FF/FG without any firmly held opinions on a UI?

No question that the traditional "core" support of SF would be strong supporters of UI , but I'm not altogether convinced that the recent additions would hold anything like the same level of conviction..

So as SF grow their support-base are they diluting the strength of their core republican ideals?

Equally I don't know that Mary-Lou and the rest of the "next generation" of SF TD's would so vehemently hold on to the struggle for a UI in the absence of the current leadership 7-10 years from now...

The numbers holding the aspiration for a UI in their lifetimes in the south are there to be convinced as the demographic also shifts in NI - is my point.I don't see anything to suggest that there will be less of an aspiration for a UI among SF's new batch of prospective leaders.
The further we move away from the divisions caused by the conflict the more attractive voicing the practical, economic benefits of a UI might become to the likes of the next round of FF leaders too, you have to accept.

I am convinced that the trend of closer and closer ties with NI, much more integration and crossover and the consequent breaking down of barriers, fears and distrust between the two jurisdictions, will bring a significant change in opinions as Britain withdraws economic supports, as they have clearly commenced to do.
And also the dilution in the hardline, religiously conservative attitudes of some branches of Unionism that normality will bring in NI will be a factor.

The irrational - everything SF says and does is wrong - attitudes will dilute too. (Time is a great healer!

)

Jawgap · 11-11-2015 11:14am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the key piece for SF though...

How much of their "new" support that they've picked up over the last number of years support them for their republican ideals and how many support them as being a left wing alternative to FF/FG without any firmly held opinions on a UI?

No question that the traditional "core" support of SF would be strong supporters of UI , but I'm not altogether convinced that the recent additions would hold anything like the same level of conviction..

So as SF grow their support-base are they diluting the strength of their core republican ideals?

Equally I don't know that Mary-Lou and the rest of the "next generation" of SF TD's would so vehemently hold on to the struggle for a UI in the absence of the current leadership 7-10 years from now...

I think the problem may be that a lot of the 'soft' support they garnered through the tough times when there was "ah-sure-we-as-well-see-what-the-other-crowd-have-to-offer" attitude has not been converted into core support (some has, but not a lot)....

.....meaning they're regressing to their core supporters who are properly vociferous about UI - and on the basis that the loudest voices get heard, that probably means it's seen as an issue of interest / importance - but it's not going to woo voters to them, especially now the recovery seems to be bedding in and more and more people have something to lose.

The other issue is a lot of their rhetoric and some of their policies (absentionism, for example) are so last century.

Jawgap · 11-11-2015 11:18am

Happyman42 wrote: »

The numbers holding the aspiration for a UI in their lifetimes in the south are there to be convinced as the demographic also shifts in NI - is my point.I don't see anything to suggest that there will be less of an aspiration for a UI among SF's new batch of prospective leaders.
The further we move away from the divisions caused by the conflict the more attractive voicing the practical, economic benefits of a UI might become to the likes of the next round of FF leaders too, you have to accept.

I am convinced that the trend of closer and closer ties with NI, much more integration and crossover and the consequent breaking down of barriers, fears and distrust between the two jurisdictions, will bring a significant change in opinions as Britain withdraws economic supports, as they have clearly commenced to do.
And also the dilution in the hardline, religiously conservative attitudes of some branches of Unionism that normality will bring in NI will be a factor.

The irrational - everything SF says and does is wrong - attitudes will dilute too. (Time is a great healer! )

I travel, do business and play the odd bit of sport in NI, I don't get that there is any sense of fear or distrust between the jurisdictions - what evidence is there to suggest that there is?

If anything the only thing that hampers (or dictates) interaction between the jurisdictions is the currency differential

Quin_Dub · 11-11-2015 11:21am

Jawgap wrote: »

Can you share the source of this chart?

Would like to see the data and play with the charts..

Cheers

Happyman42 · 11-11-2015 11:25am

Jawgap wrote: »

I travel, do business and play the odd bit of sport in NI, I don't get that there is any sense of fear or distrust between the jurisdictions - what evidence is there to suggest that there is?

If anything the only thing that hampers (or dictates) interaction between the jurisdictions is the currency differential

Back in the 90's and early noughties Unionist politicians along the border wouldn't countenance engagement with cross border groups (they would play lip service but in terms of knuckling down and doing actual work) that is still there to an extent but is diluting all the time.
I work with some of these groups and I can now debate issues with a Unionist politician or indeed Unionist people, who heretofore wouldn't go near such a discussion. That is all to the good. My point was that the breaking down of the distrust and fears will have an effect on the debate as NI and border areas continue to normalise.

Godge · 11-11-2015 1:26pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the key piece for SF though...

How much of their "new" support that they've picked up over the last number of years support them for their republican ideals and how many support them as being a left wing alternative to FF/FG without any firmly held opinions on a UI?

No question that the traditional "core" support of SF would be strong supporters of UI , but I'm not altogether convinced that the recent additions would hold anything like the same level of conviction..

So as SF grow their support-base are they diluting the strength of their core republican ideals?

Equally I don't know that Mary-Lou and the rest of the "next generation" of SF TD's would so vehemently hold on to the struggle for a UI in the absence of the current leadership 7-10 years from now...

They will become Fianna Fail Nua, a bit like the Fianna Fail party of the 1930s onwards, plenty of rhetoric about a united Ireland, but when a little action is taken (Blaney and Haughey in the 1970s) swift action to remove troublemakers will happen. Eventually, they will just be like everyone else.

Happyman42 · 11-11-2015 1:41pm

Godge wrote: »

They will become Fianna Fail Nua, a bit like the Fianna Fail party of the 1930s onwards, plenty of rhetoric about a united Ireland, but when a little action is taken (Blaney and Haughey in the 1970s) swift action to remove troublemakers will happen. Eventually, they will just be like everyone else.

You are perhaps forgetting that they will have something the FF party of the 30's didn't have, i.e.; a NI dimension. IMO that will keep them on their toes about promoting and pushing for a UI.
FG/FF in the main, turned their backs to Irish people separtated by partition.

Godge · 11-11-2015 2:06pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are perhaps forgetting that they will have something the FF party of the 30's didn't have, i.e.; a NI dimension. IMO that will keep them on their toes about promoting and pushing for a UI.
FG/FF in the main, turned their backs to Irish people separtated by partition.

The Northern population is normalising already. From the election after next, I predict a rise in support for both moderate nationalist and moderate unionist parties. SF will become a minority of a minority again up there by around 2030.

alaimacerc · 12-11-2015 2:43am

Godge wrote: »

The Northern population is normalising already. From the election after next, I predict a rise in support for both moderate nationalist and moderate unionist parties. SF will become a minority of a minority again up there by around 2030.

Seems very iffy to me. The Unionists aren't even sure which of them are the "moderates" any more. (Granted, they're confident it's not Jim Allister.) SF are for all intents and purposes an "moderate nationalist party" for electoral purposes (if we ignore their history and "hinterland"). Such play as the SDLP has had recently has had as much to do with outflanking SF on the extreme as on the centre. Case in point, abortion. (Not that SF's "reform" credentials are anything other than tepid. But they at least count as such by Ireland's low, low standard (moreso south than north).)

A "normalised" electorate could very plausibly end up still voting for a "normalised" SF and DUP.

I'll believe that that normalisation has meaningfully occurred when there's a sufficiently large "neither of the above" tradition that the assembly is forced to change the tradition-based petition of concern mechanism.

alaimacerc · 12-11-2015 3:40am

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have already said that the 'poll' is in line with how I thought it would be. The time isn't right now, any fool can see and understand that. The leading questions were silly and pointless.

The answers are exactly as you expected, but all the questions were wrong. Most curious. Precisely which of the questions were "leading", and what (in your rigorously impartial opinion) would better alternatives have been? The reflexive Republican responses don't seem to have been backed up with a lot of substance. "Wrong" questions, RTE/BBC bias, climate"gate"-like overexcitement about charted results not summing to 100, standard sample size is mysteriously invalid allofasudden, etc, etc...

I do believe that we will see one of the game changing events within the next 10 to 20 years. Either a Brexit, a dilution/break-up of the UK, SF coming to power in the south, or the subvention decreasing to the point were NI will have to face up to the reality of it's failure as an entity.

This last is fairly vague (nor am I entirely clear what you mean by a "dilution" of the UK), but there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement here that if there's not a game-changing event, there won't be a UI within 20 years. (Setting aside how likely it might be even if there is.)

Happyman42 wrote: »

The further we move away from the divisions caused by the conflict the more attractive voicing the practical, economic benefits of a UI might become to the likes of the next round of FF leaders too, you have to accept.

Not that it's the FF leadership's decision. Or that noises they make about it are likely to prove anything other than as counterproductive than SF's.

One needs to unbundle the various components of the economics aspect. There are the effects of partition, per se. There are the secondary effects of NI's "non-normalisation". There's the cross-subsidy from ("mainland") GB. It's indeed likely the latter will be reduced, given Tory ideology for one thing. Question is whether this will be roughly in line with offsetting benefits from the first two and UK cuts generally, or more or less favourable than that. Perhaps you feel the survey would have benefited from a question on the lines of "Will you want to leave the UK in high dudgeon if the UK subvention is reduced to less than €10bn? (PS, SF says it's currently a mere €3bn, that would be no trouble at all to borrow.)"

Happyman42 wrote: »

The irrational - everything SF says and does is wrong - attitudes will dilute too. (Time is a great healer! )

A more pressing thing to hope for would be dilution of rampant overdiagnosis in some quarters of "irrationality", in relation to any criticism whatsoever of SF.

Nichard Dixon · 12-11-2015 3:51am

Godge wrote: »

The Northern population is normalising already. From the election after next, I predict a rise in support for both moderate nationalist and moderate unionist parties. SF will become a minority of a minority again up there by around 2030.

Northern Ireland is not normal, there is only so much normalisation can take place in a statelet set up to advance sectarianism.

alaimacerc · 12-11-2015 5:00am

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Northern Ireland is not normal, there is only so much normalisation can take place in a statelet set up to advance sectarianism.

Ah, "original sin" thinking. It's not even in principle possible for NI to become a fully functioning society because of the circumstances of partition? If it's yea unto the seventh generation, let's at least cherish a glimmer of hope for the eighth.

The more real danger is that this becomes self-fulfilling. We must not allow normalisation, as it would validate partition. Not entirely unlike the "mustn't let the terrorists win" thinking on the British/Unionist side.

eire4 · 12-11-2015 5:55am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Back in the 90's and early noughties Unionist politicians along the border wouldn't countenance engagement with cross border groups (they would play lip service but in terms of knuckling down and doing actual work) that is still there to an extent but is diluting all the time.
I work with some of these groups and I can now debate issues with a Unionist politician or indeed Unionist people, who heretofore wouldn't go near such a discussion. That is all to the good. My point was that the breaking down of the distrust and fears will have an effect on the debate as NI and border areas continue to normalise.

Look at the reaction to the Anglo-Irish agreement in the 1980's and how virulent the unionist and loyalist protests were against it. In fact it was the Anglo-Irish agreement that was a key factor in the fomation of The Committee and the Inner Force in the RUC. There is much work to be done in reaching across divides but we have come a long way from the post Anglo-Irish agreement horrors.

Jawgap · 12-11-2015 9:07am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, "original sin" thinking. It's not even in principle possible for NI to become a fully functioning society because of the circumstances of partition? If it's yea unto the seventh generation, let's at least cherish a glimmer of hope for the eighth.

The more real danger is that this becomes self-fulfilling. We must not allow normalisation, as it would validate partition. Not entirely unlike the "mustn't let the terrorists win" thinking on the British/Unionist side.

The overlooked part is, perhaps, the Ryanair / Facebook effect - NI (and the Republic) isn't nearly as insular as it was 20 or 30 years ago. People travel, not just emigrate - ideas etc move more freely and quickly, and it's the generations raised in the information era that are coming to the fore over the next 10 years or so.

They're less concerned about borders because borders don't really affect them.

Happyman42 · 12-11-2015 9:48am

alaimacerc wrote: »

The answers are exactly as you expected, but all the questions were wrong. Most curious. Precisely which of the questions were "leading", and what (in your rigorously impartial opinion) would better alternatives have been? The reflexive Republican responses don't seem to have been backed up with a lot of substance. "Wrong" questions, RTE/BBC bias, climate"gate"-like overexcitement about charted results not summing to 100, standard sample size is mysteriously invalid allofasudden, etc, etc...

'The' leading question... the question about tax was wrong imo as you were always likely to get a negative result.

This last is fairly vague (nor am I entirely clear what you mean by a "dilution" of the UK), but there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement here that if there's not a game-changing event, there won't be a UI within 20 years. (Setting aside how likely it might be even if there is.)

Dilution -more regional autonomy, English parliament etc.

Not that it's the FF leadership's decision. Or that noises they make about it are likely to prove anything other than as counterproductive than SF's.

One needs to unbundle the various components of the economics aspect. There are the effects of partition, per se. There are the secondary effects of NI's "non-normalisation". There's the cross-subsidy from ("mainland") GB. It's indeed likely the latter will be reduced, given Tory ideology for one thing. Question is whether this will be roughly in line with offsetting benefits from the first two and UK cuts generally, or more or less favourable than that. Perhaps you feel the survey would have benefited from a question on the lines of "Will you want to leave the UK in high dudgeon if the UK subvention is reduced to less than €10bn? (PS, SF says it's currently a mere €3bn, that would be no trouble at all to borrow.)"

Despite the sarcasm I detect tacit acknowledgement that questions about the future need to be more nuanced and less headline.

A more pressing thing to hope for would be dilution of rampant overdiagnosis in some quarters of "irrationality", in relation to any criticism whatsoever of SF.

Funny that, I was just wondering in another post how one party could be so wrong in EVERYTHING they say and do in the eyes of some posters on here.

Godge · 12-11-2015 4:58pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

A "normalised" electorate could very plausibly end up still voting for a "normalised" SF and DUP.

I'll believe that that normalisation has meaningfully occurred when there's a sufficiently large "neither of the above" tradition that the assembly is forced to change the tradition-based petition of concern mechanism.

Possibly, you are right, but it will take a generational change in leadership and policy for either of the DUP or SF to become anything like a normal political party.

Nichard Dixon · 12-11-2015 11:46pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, "original sin" thinking. It's not even in principle possible for NI to become a fully functioning society because of the circumstances of partition? If it's yea unto the seventh generation, let's at least cherish a glimmer of hope for the eighth.

The more real danger is that this becomes self-fulfilling. We must not allow normalisation, as it would validate partition. Not entirely unlike the "mustn't let the terrorists win" thinking on the British/Unionist side.

In a scenario where we are criticising ISIS and the like, it would be quite wrong to support a 17th century ethnic cleansing project, even if this would be more convenient for some. But then Mé Feiners are always large in number.

Godge · 13-11-2015 10:27am

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

In a scenario where we are criticising ISIS and the like, it would be quite wrong to support a 17th century ethnic cleansing project, even if this would be more convenient for some. But then Mé Feiners are always large in number.

If we are criticising ISIS, then we are supporting the West led by the US, which means we are supporting a 17th century ethnic cleansing project.

Some very confused logic you have.

alaimacerc · 14-11-2015 3:50pm

Godge wrote: »

Possibly, you are right, but it will take a generational change in leadership and policy for either of the DUP or SF to become anything like a normal political party.

But we're looking at generational change all round. We may need to get new voters -- I mean by the traditional method, not the "ship 'em out" idea -- before things change appreciably. And a generation of political leader takes less time than that. (Well, in most parties it does. SFMV.)

alaimacerc · 14-11-2015 3:57pm

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

In a scenario where we are criticising ISIS and the like, it would be quite wrong to support a 17th century ethnic cleansing project, even if this would be more convenient for some.

Your train of thought seems all over the radar here, but just backdating the "original sin" concept further isn't making it any more valid. Are you suggesting that we should set aside an agreed peace process, self-determination, etc, in favour of seeking vengeance for the misdeeds of the past?

Prime Time special on a United Ireland

Comments