Gerry Adams to run for President ?

Painted Pony

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could it be anymore 'disappointing' than the failure that is N.I.?

Short answer, yes it could. The compromise in Northern Ireland at present, imperfect though it may be, is about the best that can be realistically hoped for. And substantial change could, and probably would, make things much, much worse.

Happyman42

Painted Pony wrote: »

Short answer, yes it could. The compromise in Northern Ireland at present, imperfect though it may be, is about the best that can be realistically hoped for. And substantial change could, and probably would, make things much, much worse.

Look at it realistically for once, will they ever truly work together without the oversight of outsiders?
Instead of owing to the past, what if they thought about what they owe the future for once.
The unfortunate ordinary people of N.I. are faced with this kind of nonsense into the distant future. It's not a compromise, it's round pegs into square holes as they cling onto something that is clearly long gone. The British will not fight for them anymore, have said via the GFA that they will walk away once the time is right. The question is always there for Unionists, the question they will pretend doesn't exist...'what is our future now that it is clear we are not full Britons and our so called 'Britishness' will not be defended?' It's a tough question but it is very clearly there to be answered.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Look at it realistically for once, will they ever truly work together without the oversight of outsiders?
Instead of owing to the past, what if they thought about what they owe the future for once.
The unfortunate ordinary people of N.I. are faced with this kind of nonsense into the distant future. It's not a compromise, it's round pegs into square holes as they cling onto something that is clearly long gone. The British will not fight for them anymore, have said via the GFA that they will walk away once the time is right. The question is always there for Unionists, the question they will pretend doesn't exist...'what is our future now that it is clear we are not full Britons and our so called 'Britishness' will not be defended?' It's a tough question but it is very clearly there to be answered.

But the GFA also says that the South will only take them if both North and South want it to happen.

I cannot see a referendum passing on both sides of the border this side of 2040.

What the GFA forces the people of Northern Ireland to do is firstly get along with one another. Even if the nationalist majority makes itself heard in a vote in the next 15 years, do you think that the South will want to take on a bitterly divided Northern Ireland where the new future nationalist majority does not give respect to the traditions of the unionist minority?

If you think the Unionists have a crisis over their Britishness, how will the nationalists feel when the South rejects them?

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

But the GFA also says that the South will only take them if both North and South want it to happen.

Ugh, this type of language is so cringeworthy. Nobody will be "taking" anyone. Ireland is Ireland, it will be the reunification of the country and a new start north,south, east and west.

Godge wrote: »

What the GFA forces the people of Northern Ireland to do is firstly get along with one another. Even if the nationalist majority makes itself heard in a vote in the next 15 years, do you think that the South will want to take on a bitterly divided Northern Ireland where the new future nationalist majority does not give respect to the traditions of the unionist minority?

If you think the Unionists have a crisis over their Britishness, how will the nationalists feel when the South rejects them?

Do not confuse your and Iwasfrozens's opinions with those of the general population.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Ugh, this type of language is so cringeworthy. Nobody will be "taking" anyone. Ireland is Ireland, it will be the reunification of the country and a new start north,south, east and west.



Do not confuse your and Iwasfrozens's opinions with those of the general population.

Ironically I have been told on these threads I know nothing about the North because my profile says Dublin 15 but now it seems I know nothing about the South either.

Northern nationalists continually overestimate the willingness of the South to take on the burden of reunification. You will get 90% in an opinion poll to say that they would love a United Ireland but you won't get 51% to say yes in a referendum if the North is still a bitterly divided State with a substantial dissident Unionist minority and there is a significant bill for security and welfare attached to reunification not to mention a serious domestic terrorism issue.

The only way it can be achieved is if the two communities up North reach an accommodation among themselves that demonstrably delivers peace and mutual respect. The Nationalist bellyaching over 12th of July commemorations is one example of issues that don't help.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

Ironically I have been told on these threads I know nothing about the North because my profile says Dublin 15 but now it seems I know nothing about the South either.

Northern nationalists continually overestimate the willingness of the South to take on the burden of reunification. You will get 90% in an opinion poll to say that they would love a United Ireland but you won't get 51% to say yes in a referendum if the North is still a bitterly divided State with a substantial dissident Unionist minority and there is a significant bill for security and welfare attached to reunification not to mention a serious domestic terrorism issue.

Care to provide something to back this up, because all the evidence indicates otherwise.

Godge wrote: »

The only way it can be achieved is if the two communities up North reach an accommodation among themselves that demonstrably delivers peace and mutual respect. The Nationalist bellyaching over 12th of July commemorations is one example of issues that don't help.

Those bloody nationalists, bellyaching about their rights. I mean, they got the vote, what more do they want.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Care to provide something to back this up, because all the evidence indicates otherwise.



.

Common sense.

Who in their right mind would want to add on an extra jurisdiction with two communities that don't get on with each other and are making no effort to get on and will leave you with a taxation headache, an expensive policing bill and a risk that violence would spread South?

It is not rocket science to conclude that once a serious debate takes place about the North that support in the South will wither away. Of course, in another 20 years you will have learned to get on and the Orange Order will be able to have their parades, marching bands, flags and bunting while the SF/IRA apologists will be able to have their bomber commemorations in peace. Then we might look at reunification.

golfball37

Every Political Party in the South supports re-unification as long as thats what the majority in the North want.

Its a non runner that the South would reject it unless the main parties are even bigger hypocrites than we thought.

Godge

golfball37 wrote: »

Every Political Party in the South supports re-unification as long as thats what the majority in the North want.

Its a non runner that the South would reject it unless the main parties are even bigger hypocrites than we thought.

Every political party supported the extension of the oireachtas remit on investigations.

Nearly every political party supported various EU referenda.

Only FF opposed the abolition of the Seanad.


Correct if I am wrong but didn't all of those referenda sail through on the back of widespread political party support?

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

Common sense.

Oh right, so basically nothing more than your opinion, like I said.

Godge wrote: »

Who in their right mind would want to add on an extra jurisdiction with two communities that don't get on with each other and are making no effort to get on and will leave you with a taxation headache, an expensive policing bill and a risk that violence would spread South?

Who in their right mind wouldnt want to unite the national territory, get rid of stupid and expensive duplication on the island, get rid of the idiotic practice of having two jurisdictions on an island this size competing for jobs and investment, restructure and shake up the Irish political system, finally bring an end to a conflict that's almost a millenium old and market a new, reunified Ireland to the world as a place open for business and pleasure.

Your talk about violence and policing is nothing short of scaremongering. It's been made quite clear that all this will happen when the majority wants it, meaning there would have to be significant unionist support. Even with the full support of the state behind them loyalist paramilitaries were able to achieve nothing apart from killing random civilians and internecine feuding. Take the support of the state away and a chunk of their own people, not to mention the fact that reunification is the end game, there's nothing to fight for, and it's obvious your talk of violence is rubbish.

Godge wrote: »

It is not rocket science to conclude that once a serious debate takes place about the North that support in the South will wither away. Of course, in another 20 years you will have learned to get on and the Orange Order will be able to have their parades, marching bands, flags and bunting while the SF/IRA apologists will be able to have their bomber commemorations in peace. Then we might look at reunification.

I'd say the opposite, I'd say once a serious debate takes places people will finally start to see the real challenges and opportunities it affords, rather than trucking out the same old empty "we cant afford it" rhetoric.
The second part of this paragraph just strays into the typical ignorance youre so fond of spouting so I'll just skip over it.
Your last sentence is very telling. My whole argument is that we should have this debate, get all the facts out there and let the people decide, you, on the other hand, have once again elected yourself to speak for everybody in the 26 counties.

Painted Pony

Happyman42 wrote: »

Look at it realistically for once, will they ever truly work together without the oversight of outsiders?

But why would outsiders from Dublin have any less of an impact that outsiders from London. Surely if you want the two communities to work together politically the logical thing to do is leave the assembly in place?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Ireland is Ireland ….

Because God made it so?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

it will be the reunification of the country

Nope. Unification, not reunification.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

and a new start north, south, east and west.

Maybe. But that is just a hope / prayer. It might be a great new beginning. But equally well we might end of with all the problems of both the North and the South combined.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Who in their right mind wouldnt want to unite the national territory

Again, was it God that made the island of Ireland the national territory?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

finally bring an end to a conflict that's almost a millenium old

The conflict is pretty much over. The dissidents who might (or might not) stop post a UI would likely be replace by loyalists who would engage in the same undemocratic carryon.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

meaning there would have to be significant unionist support.

Now this kind of thinking is just baffling. There will never be significant, or even substantial, unionist support. And for the very same reason (though there is precious little reason involved) that there would be no substantial support amongst nationalists for Ireland to rejoin the UK. Unionists are as disserved by blind irrational nationalism every bit as much as republicans are.

They will have to accept a UI if a majority in NI (and the South) want it, and in time they may elect to make the most of it. But they won’t be supporting one anytime soon.

Manassas61

Ireland is Ireland, it will be the reunification of the country

Since when has the Island ever been a full Irish Republican state? It would not be reunification. Its never been United. And the issue is Ulster, not the rest of the Island.

Even with the full support of the state behind them loyalist paramilitaries were able to achieve nothing apart from killing random civilians and internecine feuding. Take the support of the state away and a chunk of their own people

Northern Ireland was in the Union at that time. It would be a completely different situation if it was in reverse. A lot of people probably would take up arms to defend their homes from Southern invasion.

Crooked Jack

Painted Pony wrote: »

Because God made it so?

So what you're saying is, you have nothing of substance to say on this matter.

Painted Pony wrote: »

Nope. Unification, not reunification.

Still nothing of substance

Painted Pony wrote: »

Maybe. But that is just a hope / prayer. It might be a great new beginning. But equally well we might end of with all the problems of both the North and the South combined.

No, if it's planned and implemented properly it will be much more than a hope/prayer

Painted Pony wrote: »

Again, was it God that made the island of Ireland the national territory?

Again, nothing of value to say

Painted Pony wrote: »

The conflict is pretty much over. The dissidents who might (or might not) stop post a UI would likely be replace by loyalists who would engage in the same undemocratic carryon.

Youve made two contradictory points here, the second one of which I already addressed.

Painted Pony wrote: »

Now this kind of thinking is just baffling. There will never be significant, or even substantial, unionist support. And for the very same reason (though there is precious little reason involved) that there would be no substantial support amongst nationalists for Ireland to rejoin the UK. Unionists are as disserved by blind irrational nationalism every bit as much as republicans are.

They will have to accept a UI if a majority in NI (and the South) want it, and in time they may elect to make the most of it. But they won’t be supporting one anytime soon.

Republicanism is not nationalism. Your posts have betrayed a shocking level of ignorance on republicanism and Irish history.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Northern Ireland was in the Union at that time. It would be a completely different situation if it was in reverse. A lot of people probably would take up arms to defend their homes from Southern invasion.

Just wow; you do realize that we are discussing the possibility and desirability of Northern Ireland voluntarily voting to dissolve itself and not the Irish Defense Force sending in the tanks in the middle of the night to flood Portadown? Nobody believes that an invasion of the south ordered by Leinster House is any near a possibility- no one. So why talk about an imagined Southern invasion?

So in the event of British withdrawal do you honestly see Ulster Protestants crave out a two county statelet with Belfast maybe divided ala Berlin during the cold war? How is that going to work itself out?

Painted Pony

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So what you're saying is, you have nothing of substance to say on this matter.

I was responding to your assertion that “Ireland is Ireland ….”. Do you consider this a comment of substance?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Still nothing of substance

Do you think there is no substantial difference between Ireland being established as an all-island state for the first time and being returned to that state, having being there before?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Youve made two contradictory points here, the second one of which I already addressed.

I don’t see the contradiction?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Republicanism is not nationalism.

By nationalism I mean the irrational religious-like allegiance to, or aspiration towards, a particular constitutional arrangement. Irish republicans certainly are, in the main, nationalists in this sense. As for that matter are Irish unionists.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Your posts have betrayed a shocking level of ignorance on republicanism and Irish history.

Says the man who seemingly thinks Ireland was once united!

And I note that you choose not to follow up on your preposterous suggestion that unionists might be persuaded of the merits of a united Ireland!

Richard

Painted Pony wrote: »

And I note that you choose not to follow up on your preposterous suggestion that unionists might be persuaded of the merits of a united Ireland!

That's one thing he said that isn't preposterous.

Die hard loyalists wouldn't be, but many middle-class unionists could change their mind if the conditions were right.

The potential instability caused by a transition to a UI could however, put many of them, and moderate nationalists off the idea of a UI.

Painted Pony

Richard wrote: »

That's one thing he said that isn't preposterous.

Die hard loyalists wouldn't be, but many middle-class unionists could change their mind if the conditions were right.

The potential instability caused by a transition to a UI could however, put many of them, and moderate nationalists off the idea of a UI.

i’m afraid it is preposterous. To see why, try putting the shoe on the other foot and ask what would it take to persuade Irish nationalists to consider Ireland returning to be part of the UK?

And the simple answer is nothing would, ever. And it wouldn’t matter how great an advantage or how good the arguments were for doing so (I’m not suggesting there are any) it simply wouldn’t be considered. And it wouldn’t because nationalism is principally about emotive considerations, not reasoned ones.

So why exactly do you think unionists have any greater capacity to be rational? They may accept and make the best of it if a UI starts to look imminent and inevitable, much as many Northern Irish nationalists currently make the best of living in a British jurisdiction, but to suggest that they might be persuaded that a UI would be a great thing altogether is indeed preposterous.

It would be like a Man Utd supporter thinking that theirs is a wonderful club altogether and contemplating how he might persuade Liverpool fans to give their allegiance to it.

timthumbni

Richard wrote: »

That's one thing he said that isn't preposterous.

Die hard loyalists wouldn't be, but many middle-class unionists could change their mind if the conditions were right.

The potential instability caused by a transition to a UI could however, put many of them, and moderate nationalists off the idea of a UI.

The problem is the conditions will probably never be right to persuade any sizeable sum of unionists (middle class or otherwise) into the merits of this so called "united Ireland"

Sinn Fein's continued antics continue to antagonise unionists of all hues such as their support for the Castlederg bombers parade and Gerry bomber Kelly's recent statement that the Shankill bomber Thomas Begley was also a victim of the bomb. (He was the one who carried out the bombing, yet he was just as much a victim as the men, women and children he blew to pieces according to Kelly and SF anyway)

Next they will suggesting that a child abuser is just as much a victim as the child they abused. (Going by their dopey reasoning)

So in summary, No, SF are not likely to persuade many middle class unionists of a united Ireland.

Happyman42

timthumbni wrote: »

The problem is the conditions will probably never be right to persuade any sizeable sum of unionists (middle class or otherwise) into the merits of this so called "united Ireland"

What happens if the British think that proposals for a United Ireland are the best way forward. IMO that is where the British are headed, and they will be presuading Unionists to give it a go. What would be the response in that scenario, what options would the Unionists put forward or indeed have?
Treat is as a hypotethical for the sake of the argument.

SoulandForm

Given that the Provisional movement is very much a product of Northern Ireland as it stands, at least in its less lovable aspects, I find it strange to say the least that someone would bring up their behaviour as an argument for keeping NI in existence.

SoulandForm

Happyman42 wrote: »

What happens if the British think that proposals for a United Ireland are the best way forward. IMO that is where the British are headed, and they will be presuading Unionists to give it a go. What would be the response in that scenario, what options would the Unionists put forward or indeed have?
Treat is as a hypotethical for the sake of the argument.

I dont think that we can be at all certain of that. One of the things that Peter Mandelson achieved in his gutting of the British Labour Party was getting them to drop the old policy of a united Ireland by consent in favour of a unionist position.

One thing though that is certain is the complete lack of interest that the UK mainland parties have in actually organizing in Northern Ireland and becoming a real part of its civic life. That is expect UKIP but given the caliber of people they have been recruiting the six counties they are more than likely going to get themselves seriously burned in the process. As long as Northern Ireland remains in the UK its only ever going to be the mad relation in the attic that people would rather not get involved with. It is anything but just as an integral part of the UK as Flinchley.

Pony does have a point in that many Unionists will resist a Northern Ireland no matter what out of nothing but a childish belief that it would mean themuns scoring a victory of usuns.

Rubeter

Painted Pony wrote: »

Do you think there is no substantial difference between Ireland being established as an all-island state for the first time and being returned to that state, having being there before?

Did you ever hear of this? The Kingdom of Ireland.

Did the holder of this office reign over a politically divided land until 1922, Yes or no?

Painted Pony

Rubeter wrote: »

Did you ever hear of this? The Kingdom of Ireland.

Did the holder of this office reign over a politically divided land until 1922, Yes or no?

When some talk about the reunification pf Ireland the clear implication is that the all-Ireland state that they aspire to but with no English involvement in the running of part or all of it existed once in the past. Their argument for the legitimacy of a united Ireland plainly does not rest on arrangements or structures put in place by the English.

Now you’ll have to ask Crooked Jack yourself but I’d hazard a guess that his dream for a united Ireland is not one that is under the control of the English.

Rubeter

Painted Pony wrote: »

When some talk about the reunification pf Ireland the clear implication is that the all-Ireland state that they aspire to but with no English involvement in the running of part or all of it existed once in the past. Their argument for the legitimacy of a united Ireland plainly does not rest on arrangements or structures put in place by the English.

You can put words into peoples mouths all you want, but the fact of the matter is re-unification is a correct term, in fact the correct term.

Now you’ll have to ask Crooked Jack yourself but I’d hazard a guess that his dream for a united Ireland is not one that is under the control of the English.

Yea, so?

efb

Paedophile brother = too much baggage

Painted Pony

Rubeter wrote: »

You can put words into peoples mouths all you want, but the fact of the matter is re-unification is a correct term, in fact the correct term.

Seriously? Are you arguing this on the basis that there once was a Kingdom of Ireland? :eek:

Rubeter

Painted Pony wrote: »

Seriously? Are you arguing this on the basis that there once was a Kingdom of Ireland? :eek:

I am arguing it because it is true.

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

Just wow; you do realize that we are discussing the possibility and desirability of Northern Ireland voluntarily voting to dissolve itself and not the Irish Defense Force sending in the tanks in the middle of the night to flood Portadown? Nobody believes that an invasion of the south ordered by Leinster House is any near a possibility- no one. So why talk about an imagined Southern invasion?

So in the event of British withdrawal do you honestly see Ulster Protestants crave out a two county statelet with Belfast maybe divided ala Berlin during the cold war? How is that going to work itself out?

Perception is everything. The police force would be the Garda and that might not go down so well in certain areas and could feel like an occupation.

Banjo String

Manassas61 wrote: »

Perception is everything. The police force would be the Garda and that might not go down so well in certain areas and could feel like an occupation.

I take it from this you understand how some people viewed armed soldiers in British uniforms on the streets of the six counties as occupiers so?

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

the issue is Ulster, not the rest of the Island.

Would you mind not describing the failed state as Ulster? Ulster is a province of Ireland.

timthumbni wrote: »

The problem is the conditions will probably never be right to persuade any sizeable sum of unionists (middle class or otherwise) into the merits of this so called "united Ireland"

Which is why trying to persuade them is a total waste of time and energy. Pro UI parties should just play for the 50%+ that's all that's needed really.