British Concessions and the IRA

paky

If Britain are eventually forced into negotiating with dissident republicans what concessions are they likely to make? As far as I'm concerned the British have nothing else to concede to but a United Ireland. The IRAs of the past succeeded in bringing the British to the negotiating table and have successfully brought about the Anglo-Irish Treaty in the 1920s and the Good Friday Agreement of the 1990s, which were major concessions from the British. So if dissident republicans eventually succeed in dragging this country back into war, which imo they will, what concessions are the British likely to make, since guerilla warfare has had the desired effect in the past?

KeithAFC

If they did that, off to war it would be. Gun runners would be back.

deise go deo

I doubt there will ever be any serious talks between Britain and the Dissidents. The dissidents have already stated clearly that the only talks they are interested in is on the issue of Irish unity. In the absence of a referendum calling for Unity I cannot see the British being willing to hold talks on that.

imme

I don't believe this tiny hateful group of headbangers will drag the people of the North back to war, as you call it OP.

People in the North, for the vast majority, have grown up and accepted that you can't bomb, murder and threaten your way to the table for negotiations.

Because a person or group has the capability to murder and cause chaos does not mean that they have a right to succeed in their aims.

Moriarty

paky wrote: »

If Britain are eventually forced into negotiating with dissident republicans what concessions are they likely to make? As far as I'm concerned the British have nothing else to concede to but a United Ireland. The IRAs of the past succeeded in bringing the British to the negotiating table and have successfully brought about the Anglo-Irish Treaty in the 1920s and the Good Friday Agreement of the 1990s, which were major concessions from the British. So if dissident republicans eventually succeed in dragging this country back into war, which imo they will, what concessions are the British likely to make, since guerilla warfare has had the desired effect in the past?

Wow, that's a rose-tinted view of history you have right there.

The IRA were a thoroughly peneterated entity by the early to mid nineties, due to MI5 and the guards. The "military campaign" as some would like to view it was an unmitigated failure, it delayed the end-game of the GFA by ten to fifteen years.

What changed was that the militant leadership appreciated this at a point when there were people receptive to a final negotiated peace in London and Dublin.

It's a changed landscape in the North these days, some idiots and life-long dole jockeys don't know what to do with themselves and enjoy playing army and thinking they're important. The only "concessions" that will be made by either London or Dublin will be those that are negotiated between political parties and/or via the ballot box. As it should be.

Thankfully there's lots of prison space for armed criminals up North still.

LordSutch

paky wrote: »

If Britain are eventually forced into negotiating with dissident republicans what concessions are they likely to make?

This misconception that 'Britain' is at the heart of the problem (or can make concessions) is long past its sell by date, the people that do the bargaining are the good Unionist people of Northern Ireland, and the future of Northern Ireland staying within the UK is in their hands.

Britain (as you say) probably wants rid of Northern Ireland? and its Northern Ireland that wishes to remain within the United Kingdom, so no amount of 'bargaining' with Britain will make the Ulster folk leave the Union < unless they want to!

View

paky wrote: »

If Britain are eventually forced into negotiating with dissident republicans what concessions are they likely to make? As far as I'm concerned the British have nothing else to concede to but a United Ireland.

They have already said that should a majority of the electorate in NI want a united Ireland they can have it. As such, they don't have anything to concede. And a bombing campaign wouldn't persuade either people in NI (or the RoI) to change their minds.

steve9859

LordSutch wrote: »

This misconception that 'Britain' is at the heart of the problem (or can make concessions) is long past its sell by date, the people that do the bargaining are the good Unionist people of Northern Ireland, and the future of Northern Ireland staying within the UK is in their hands.

Britain (as you say) probably wants rid of Northern Ireland? and its Northern Ireland that wishes to remain within the United Kingdom, so no amount of 'bargaining' with Britain will make the Ulster folk leave the Union < unless they want to!

Very true. I have no doubt Westminster wants rid of NI, and there are few people in the rest of the UK that would argue. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland at this stage. If the UK were to agree to giving it up tomorrow, the only difference would be that the threat of bombs would be against targets in Dublin rather than London, and a balaclarva clad guy with an armalite in a graveyard would have a Union flag behing him rather than a Tricolour.

getz

steve9859 wrote: »

Very true. I have no doubt Westminster wants rid of NI, and there are few people in the rest of the UK that would argue. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland at this stage. If the UK were to agree to giving it up tomorrow, the only difference would be that the threat of bombs would be against targets in Dublin rather than London, and a balaclarva clad guy with an armalite in a graveyard would have a Union flag behing him rather than a Tricolour.

if there was a referendum tomorrow ,i would very much doubt that the republican/catholic part of the north would vote for a united ireland,their hearts would say yes,but their heads would tell them no,the NHS is the north biggest employer,and many other british goverment dep would be pulled out, and lets face it ,the republic is in not in any position to pick up that cost. or even want to.

later12

LordSutch wrote: »

This misconception that 'Britain' is at the heart of the problem (or can make concessions) is long past its sell by date, the people that do the bargaining are the good Unionist people of Northern Ireland, and the future of Northern Ireland staying within the UK is in their hands.

Not taking sides in this rather ridiculous debate, but that is not the case.

The Good Friday agreement stipulates that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland might only arise out of a majority vote of the citizens in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. If the majority of the population, of whatever colour or creed in the North want to secede from the Union, the vote will go south. If the majority of the population in the Republic want them to stay put, which I would suggest might be best, they will stay put and keep their own inward looking backwater as someone else's problem.

JustinDee

The "IRA" ceased operations. The animals currently trying to get noticed and win more deluded support are not "IRA". They are factions within factions.

The people of Ireland, North and South, have already spoken and have said no, via compromise, to violence.

No concessions because they have no mandate. Their dead won't be martyrs. Their living aren't heroes.

PatsytheNazi

later10 wrote: »

Not taking sides in this rather ridiculous debate, but that is not the case.

The Good Friday agreement stipulates that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland might only arise out of a majority vote of the citizens in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. If the majority of the population, of whatever colour or creed in the North want to secede from the Union, the vote will go south. If the majority of the population in the Republic want them to stay put, which I would suggest might be best, they will stay put and keep their own inward looking backwater as someone else's problem.

He says he's not taking sides and then comes out with a pro partition arguement Coming from the people who ran their wee statelet so badly despite 50 years of generously proping up the place with English tax payers money, that the British govt had to suspend their administration and come in and run the place for them - that's something !!!!

PatsytheNazi

KeithAFC wrote: »

If they did that, off to war it would be. Gun runners would be back.

Yeah just like the unionists left to the 26 counties did when the Brits said go bye in 1922. And they were going to do the same if the B Specials were disbanded, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the RUC cap badge was changed ........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

mfceiling

This baffles me...

Uk have a referendum and say we don't want N.I
ROI have a referendum and say they don't want N.I
N.I have a referendum and 50% say yes and 50% say no.

Who wins, why fight, it's clear they're not wanted by either.

Wolfe Tone

I think the Brits should address every concern militant republicans have that they can. Seen as the national question is seemingly out of their hands(open to debate) that just leaves a few other issues which should be sorted, even if it is simply to deny them propaganda.

PatsytheNazi

steve9859 wrote: »

Very true. I have no doubt Westminster wants rid of NI, and there are few people in the rest of the UK that would argue. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland at this stage. If the UK were to agree to giving it up tomorrow, the only difference would be that the threat of bombs would be against targets in Dublin rather than London, and a balaclarva clad guy with an armalite in a graveyard would have a Union flag behing him rather than a Tricolour.

It's not that Dublin hasn't been a target before by UVF/SAS now is it ? But let's see how well the unionists will last without the arming and directing of them by the Brit dirty tricks dept, etc

http://www.dublinmonaghanbombings.org/

KeithAFC

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think the Brits should address every concern militant republicans have that they can. Seen as the national question is seemingly out of their hands(open to debate) that just leaves a few other issues which should be sorted, even if it is simply to deny them propaganda.

Eh? They will only want to talk to discuss Irish unity. It ain't happening. So why bother with them?

deise go deo

KeithAFC wrote: »

Eh? They will only want to talk to discuss Irish unity. It ain't happening. So why bother with them?

Ya, but if the other issues are dealt with, then the dissidents will have less material to use as propaganda, take the wind out of their sails as such.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Eh? They will only want to talk to discuss Irish unity. It ain't happening. So why bother with them?

Look at the reals most recent statement...

If the PSNI problem(there is one) is addressed along with the issue with the prisoners, Gerry McGeogh, Martin Corey etc, if those things are resolved they will be left with simply "UI" and very few will take up arms solely for that reason.

There doesnt need to be active consultation or anything, just make it so that there only gripe of consequence is partition.

KeithAFC

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Look at the reals most recent statement...

If the PSNI problem(there is one) is addressed along with the issue with the prisoners, Gerry McGeogh, Martin Corey etc, if those things are resolved they will be left with simply "UI" and very few will take up arms solely for that reason.

There doesnt need to be active consultation or anything, just make it so that there only gripe of consequence is partition.

You heard it from them yourself. They will only enter talks if its about Irish unity. Thats it.

later12

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Coming from the people who ran their wee statelet so badly despite 50 years of generously proping up the place with English tax payers money, that the British govt had to suspend their administration and come in and run the place for them - that's something !!!!

Indeed, we're very lucky to have as good a relationship as we do with Britain, I for one am entirely glad of it, and for their assistance. The Republic is, despite its many failures, a forward looking independent state and more outward looking, more European and more open than it has ever been, even in times like this. It has also rapidly abandoned its nationalist paranoia. Perhaps the people of the North should try it some time, Patsy.

deise go deo

KeithAFC wrote: »

You heard it from them yourself. They will only enter talks if its about Irish unity. Thats it.

Thats not the point, you don't need to talk to them to rob them of propaganda material.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

You heard it from them yourself. They will only enter talks if its about Irish unity. Thats it.

Try reading what I said again keith.

Give them less things to take issue with, simples.

KeithAFC

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Try reading what I said again keith.

Give them less things to take issue with, simples.

So what? They will still be around because of that one aim. It really isn't hard to understand this. People will still join them.

deise go deo

KeithAFC wrote: »

So what? They will still be around because of that one aim. It really isn't hard to understand this. People will still join them.

Yes, but with less grievances, less people will be inclined to join them. This can only be a good thing.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer a more marginalized IRA if at all possible.

PatsytheNazi

later10 wrote: »

Indeed, we're very lucky to have as good a relationship as we do with Britain, I for one am entirely glad of it, and for their assistance. The Republic is, despite its many failures, a forward looking independent state and more outward looking, more European and more open than it has ever been, even in times like this. It has also rapidly abandoned its nationalist paranoia. Perhaps the people of the North should try it some time, Patsy.

Yeah and try waving a union jack on any street in Dublin when Mrs Windsor arrives.

FUNKY LOVER

I have asked Keith before would hesupport a united Ireland if it was democratically voted in.but have never got an answer.

OS119

deise go deo wrote: »

Ya, but if the other issues are dealt with, then the dissidents will have less material to use as propaganda, take the wind out of their sails as such.

are there any of the 'side' issues that the BG could deal with, that would really have any effect on the motivation of the members of these various groups?

i'm no intransigent, but i'm genuinely interested to know what 'non-sovereignty' issues the BG could actually move on that would allow some of the members of these groups to say 'that'll do'?

i'm assuming that nobody joins one of these groups and runs the risks that they run just for relatively minor political issues or problems with the technicalities of the PSNI recruitment application - their motivations must, in the light of the GFA, be almost wholly dominated by the national question - the problem is that, as the situation stands, what they want isn't really in the hands of the BG to give (though some, myself included, might wish that it was...).

i think its possible to make a reasonably convincing case that PIRA could not have sustained the breadth and longevity of its campaign had the NI of the 60's been a pleasent place for Nationalists to live, but if we accept that, by and large, the NI of 2011 and beyond is a reasonably pleasent place for Nationalists to live, it becomes very difficult to see how the kind of processes, changes and agreements that ended the 69-94 war could end the 2009 - whenever war...

RMD

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yeah just like the unionists left to the 26 counties did when the Brits said go bye in 1922. And they were going to do the same if the B Specials were disbanded, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the RUC cap badge was changed ........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Prior to 1922 the majority of Unionists living in what is now the Republic were generally wealthy and not the "violent" type, in comparison to the North where there's a lot more Unionists who'd happily take up arms. The one thing that has always worried me about the potential unification of Ireland is the Loyalist backlash. To say they'd do next to nothing is foolish, tell the likes of the Shankill Butchers, Michael Stone, Johnny Adair and all their UDA / UVF / UFF buddies Ireland will be reunited, see what type of response you'll get.

PatsytheNazi

RMD wrote: »

Prior to 1922 the majority of Unionists living in what is now the Republic were generally wealthy and not the "violent" type, in comparison to the North where there's a lot more Unionists who'd happily take up arms. The one thing that has always worried me about the potential unification of Ireland is the Loyalist backlash. To say they'd do next to nothing is foolish, tell the likes of the Shankill Butchers, Michael Stone, Johnny Adair and all their UDA / UVF / UFF buddies Ireland will be reunited, see what type of response you'll get.

Indeed here's a fine example of unionist mouthing in Donegal pre partition whne allegedly 1,500 Ulster Volunteers paraded at Raphoe. The fact that their brethern in the six counties babrely made a whimper when they were been abandouned to the Free State says all about their ' loyalty '.

And as for Adair and co. - without the Brits arming and directing them, their about as militarily effective as the criminal gangs of Dublin and Limerick. Indeed I'd say Gerry Hutch and Martin Cathal's gangs were probably a bigger threat in their day.

" On October 2. 1913, Sir Edward Carson held a great rally at Raphoe. 1500 Donegal volunteers paraded under the command of the fifth Earl of Leitrim. The "Derry Standard" published the headlines" Sir Edward Carson at Raphoe – imposing view of Ulster Volunteers – Donegal's "NO SURRENDER."

http://ams2-aai-web-1.anu.net/reading-room/history-heritage/heritage-towns/the-heritage-towns-of-don/raphoe/the-laggan-and-the-ulster/

KeithAFC

Donegal has always had a large Unionist population.

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

Donegal has always had a large Unionist population.

How large?
It doesn't show in the GE vote numbers, FF have always been strong and now SF are very very strong.

RMD

End of the day Patsy, the Loyalists are a vicious group with arms at their disposal, if you think they don't pose a threat and will act peacefully upon Irish unification, that's just naive. Do you think we'd sit back and allow it to happen if suddenly the Republic came under British control? We wouldn't, likewise the Loyalists wont sit back and be peaceful upon Irish unification.

paky

imme wrote: »

People in the North, for the vast majority, have grown up and accepted that you can't bomb, murder and threaten your way to the table for negotiations.

I disagree. If the past is anything to go by, it shows us you can

OS119

RMD wrote: »

End of the day Patsy, the Loyalists are a vicious group with arms at their disposal, if you think they don't pose a threat and will act peacefully upon Irish unification, that's just naive. Do you think we'd sit back and allow it to happen if suddenly the Republic came under British control? We wouldn't, likewise the Loyalists wont sit back and be peaceful upon Irish unification.

it suits PTN's political (emotional?) agenda to believe that the Loyalist/unionist community in NI is the only community of its size in the world that can't build a car bomb or a mortar without an eevil British/lizards/Joos Intelligence officer pulling their strings.

why? simple, because he views them as being less than he (the clue is in his username) - not as clever as he, not as commited as he, not a brave as he.

its an easy trap - if you're an idot - to fall into. Loyalist terrorist groups were never as effective, well trained, well lead or disciplined as PIRA for one very simple reason - if you were a smart, motivated, deeply commited loyalist/unionist who believed in the union and were prepared to defend it physically you joined the RUC or the British Army. if you had the same veiws, but were a bit thick, illdisciplined and a bit of a psycopath you joined the UVF/UDA etc... whereas PIRA got the cream - and the dross - of those who belived in Armed Republicanism, the Loyalist groups only got the dross of their community.

RMD

OS119 wrote: »

its an easy trap - if you're an idot - to fall into. Loyalist terrorist groups were never as effective, well trained, well lead or disciplined as PIRA for one very simple reason - if you were a smart, motivated, deeply commited loyalist/unionist who believed in the union and were prepared to defend it physically you joined the RUC or the British Army. if you had the same veiws, but were a bit thick, illdisciplined and a bit of a psycopath you joined the UVF/UDA etc... whereas PIRA got the cream - and the dross - of those who belived in Armed Republicanism, the Loyalist groups only got the dross of their community.

Which is exactly why they need to be feared for their backlash on reunification. As you've pointed out the intelligent ones who wanted to deal with the Republicans joined the RUC / UDR while the "hardcore" and stupid joined the paramilitaries. This will change completely upon unification and the only option for the intelligent Loyalists will be paramilitary action. If they do decide to take an armed campaign it wont be hard to find financial or armed support. All they'll have to do is get in contact with the extreme-right wing British political and paramilitary groups such as the BNP, C18, WW, BFF etc and they'll have funding, knowledge and arms.

I'm not in anyway belittling how cruel and indifferent many Republican groups were, but the Loyalists were often a right group of cruel and heartless bastards who had no problem killing someone purely because of their religion / background, if they launched an armed campaign after unification I'd certainly be worried about them.

Hannibal

OS119 wrote: »

it suits PTN's political (emotional?) agenda to believe that the Loyalist/unionist community in NI is the only community of its size in the world that can't build a car bomb or a mortar without an eevil British/lizards/Joos Intelligence officer pulling their strings.

why? simple, because he views them as being less than he (the clue is in his username) - not as clever as he, not as commited as he, not a brave as he.

its an easy trap - if you're an idot - to fall into. Loyalist terrorist groups were never as effective, well trained, well lead or disciplined as PIRA for one very simple reason - if you were a smart, motivated, deeply commited loyalist/unionist who believed in the union and were prepared to defend it physically you joined the RUC or the British Army. if you had the same views, but were a bit thick, illdisciplined and a bit of a psycopath you joined the UVF/UDA etc... whereas PIRA got the cream - and the dross - of those who belived in Armed Republicanism, the Loyalist groups only got the dross of their community.

It's also worth noting that of the PIRA's casualties 29% were civilians
Whereas with the UDA it was 76% and the UVF 83%

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

It's also worth noting that of the PIRA's casualties 29% were civilians
Whereas with the UDA it was 76% and the UVF 83%

The Troubles wasn't seen as a conflict which had civilians in it. You and me would disagree with that, obviously but that is the way a lot of it was seen.

OS119

RMD wrote: »

....All they'll have to do is get in contact with the extreme-right wing British political and paramilitary groups such as the BNP, C18, WW, BFF etc and they'll have funding, knowledge and arms....

i doubt they'd have to do that to be honest - if you think about the size of the pool of former RUC/PSNI, UDR and regular Army personel who will live in NI upon re-unification, it would only take a very small proportion of that pool to create an organisation that had a fearsome level of training and experience, one that would dwarf PIRA's capabilty at its most effective and dangerous.

funding wouldn't really be an issue - insurgencies aren't that expensive, and just as PIRA raised significant sums within its own community, i've no doubt that an organisation based around a number of former policemen and soldiers would be able to do the same within the loyalist/unionist community - probably far more effectively that the current organisations run by drug-dealing paedophiles.

paky

RMD wrote: »

Which is exactly why they need to be feared for their backlash on reunification. As you've pointed out the intelligent ones who wanted to deal with the Republicans joined the RUC / UDR while the "hardcore" and stupid joined the paramilitaries. This will change completely upon unification and the only option for the intelligent Loyalists will be paramilitary action. If they do decide to take an armed campaign it wont be hard to find financial or armed support. All they'll have to do is get in contact with the extreme-right wing British political and paramilitary groups such as the BNP, C18, WW, BFF etc and they'll have funding, knowledge and arms.

I'm not in anyway belittling how cruel and indifferent many Republican groups were, but the Loyalists were often a right group of cruel and heartless bastards who had no problem killing someone purely because of their religion / background, if they launched an armed campaign after unification I'd certainly be worried about them.

waht makes you that that unionists have a predisposition for war and terrorism?
have you considered that just maybe they might want to join the new UI police and army?
just a note, most of the murders carried out by the unionists in belfast during the 90s were done by a group of between 10-15 men, adair been the ringleader. there was no popular support for these terrorist psycopaths

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Troubles wasn't seen as a conflict which had civilians in it. You and me would disagree with that, obviously but that is the way a lot of it was seen.

Unfortunately there was civilians and no matter how many people up north define themselves as green or orange there's also many more people who simply want a peaceful life and free of secterianism.
I know a lot of people up north and I have to say it's an extremely fractured society. Some people say they're Irish, other's say Northern Irish, other's say they're British, other's claim to be from Ulster.
It's clear that a similar number oppose a 32 county republic as would oppose maintaining the union so neither nor will work long term. I somehow think an independent northern Ireland would end up like Yugoslavia with different national identities struggling to pull in the same direction and eventually self destructing. A solution is needed, the GFA provided some answers but also left some unanswered ones as its not a black and white problem.

OS119

paky wrote: »

waht makes you that that unionists have a predisposition for war and terrorism?
have you considered that just maybe they might want to join the new UI police and army?
just a note, most of the murders carried out by the unionists in belfast during the 90s were done by a group of between 10-15 men, adair been the ringleader. there was no popular support for these terrorist psycopaths

i think it quite likely that a small proportion of Loyalist/Unionists might decide to go to war on the issue. that has, after all, been the situation pretty much every other time a territory has changed its nationality anywhere else in the world.

its likely that most unionists (if perhaps not loyalists) will engage with the new 32 county nation - i imagine that most people, regardless of their tradition, will try and go for a new start in the new state, but it doesn't take many to murder and create mayhem. look at RIRA, CIRA and their offshoots.

i think most estimates put PIRA's strength in the late 1980's at about 1000 - 1500, to contain them took 15,000 RUC and 20,000 British troops. i fear that if you genuinely think that a change of national status for NI won't produce even 400 trained, experienced and very motived new terrorists, as well as swaithes of the young, dumb and easily lead to act as their cannon fodder, you are being frighteningly niave.

paky

OS119 wrote: »

i think most estimates put PIRA's strength in the late 1980's at about 1000 - 1500, to contain them took 15,000 RUC and 20,000 British troops. i fear that if you genuinely think that a change of national status for NI won't produce even 400 trained, experienced and very motived new terrorists, as well as swaithes of the young, dumb and easily lead to act as their cannon fodder, you are being frighteningly niave.

the free state dealt with the same problem when it came into existance (much larger in fact), however it delt with this situation within a year

blinding

The Brits should set up their own Irish Republican Army Battalion. This would cause a lot of confusion and when it comes to nutters killing one another why not throw in some confusion.

The Brits may have done this in the past !. They may even be doing it now ?

RMD

paky wrote: »

waht makes you that that unionists have a predisposition for war and terrorism?
have you considered that just maybe they might want to join the new UI police and army?
just a note, most of the murders carried out by the unionists in belfast during the 90s were done by a group of between 10-15 men, adair been the ringleader. there was no popular support for these terrorist psycopaths

I'm not saying Unionists have a pre-disposition to violence, I'm saying a group of Loyalists do. They're loyal to the crown, it's in the name, there's not a hope in hell they'd want to be any part of a United Ireland's police force or army. Look up the "No Surrender" mentality of the Loyalists, then you'll see why these guys wont just accept an UI. The 90's wasn't the only time the Loyalists killed people, there were many other killings throughout the Troubles the vast majority being during the 70s and 80s. There was plenty of support for the Loyalists in working class protestant communities and there's still plenty of Loyalist murals still there today to prove it. The Loyalist paramilitaries were as widely supported as the Republican paramilitaries by their respective communities.

Bottle_of_Smoke

There's so many groups now how could one offer "them" any concessions?

Seems more like an al-qaeda type structureless structure now. Doesnt even appear to be anything like a republican version of the Combined Loyalist Military Command in place either.

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

Unfortunately there was civilians and no matter how many people up north define themselves as green or orange there's also many more people who simply want a peaceful life and free of secterianism.
I know a lot of people up north and I have to say it's an extremely fractured society. Some people say they're Irish, other's say Northern Irish, other's say they're British, other's claim to be from Ulster.
It's clear that a similar number oppose a 32 county republic as would oppose maintaining the union so neither nor will work long term. I somehow think an independent northern Ireland would end up like Yugoslavia with different national identities struggling to pull in the same direction and eventually self destructing. A solution is needed, the GFA provided some answers but also left some unanswered ones as its not a black and white problem.

An Independent Ulster. The 3 counties of Ulster in the republic given back to the Ulster people to form a 9 countie Independent Ulster.

JustinDee

KeithAFC wrote: »

An Independent Ulster. The 3 counties of Ulster in the republic given back to the Ulster people to form a 9 countie Independent Ulster.

Economies like Britain and Rep.Ireland can't even maintain self-subsistency. If they can't then an independent Northern Ireland wouldn't even get close to any semblance of self-subsistency. Aside from a propped economy, it would see more parliamentary dissolution than Italy and Ukraine in a good decade.
Laughable.
There is nothing, apart from the status quo, that is remotely possible given the inability of a people involved to maintain a maturity and non-subjective approach to any other solution.

I think you're posting for a reaction, using terms like "given back" etc, by the way.

paky

the british have been fighting a loosing war against the IRA for the past century or so. every time there's a war they come to some form of agreement and make concessions. i think the british are all out of concessions now and no matter which avenue they would like to take they will meet opposition from Sinn Fein and the dissidents. I think the 'jig' is up for Britain in Ireland

sollar

I think Fianna fail have set ambitions for a UI back another couple of generations. Mr Ahern, Mr Cowan and Mr McCreavey & even Mr Lenihan have done such damage to this country. But the FF voters and their shortsightedness haven't helped either.

I hope we all learn a big lesson from the last 15 years.

JustinDee

paky wrote: »

the british have been fighting a loosing war against the IRA for the past century or so. every time there's a war they come to some form of agreement and make concessions. i think the british are all out of concessions now and no matter which avenue they would like to take they will meet opposition from Sinn Fein and the dissidents. I think the 'jig' is up for Britain in Ireland

???
The deluded dissidents are not 'IRA' despite what they call themselves. And Oglaigh na hEireann is based in Dublin in the official Army HQ.
They have no mandate whatsoever. Situation is nothing like the late 60s/early 70s and thanks to what people all over Ireland voted overwhelmingly for, compromise has been settled upon.
As for Britain "losing" the war against the IRA, I'd read up a little more on the subject if I were you as your posts read like you were not of age during the so-called Troubles. Start with Peter Taylor the excellent BBC journalist then have a read up on MI5 ops in Northern Ireland during the late 90s. Not wikipedia or a one-eyed tilted fanboy website.