Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Godge

alastair wrote: »

Last year's NI annual deficit was €11.6 billion - Ireland's deficit for 2013 was €11.5 billion. Perhaps it's escaped your notice that our current deficit isn't sustainable as it stands, and in order to borrow, we've committed to reducing it to about half of those 2013 figures. That's an obligation to half our deficit, not double it.

Dreamy nationalists don't live in a real world.

Just pretend that if there was a united Ireland tomorrow, the world will be rosy and everyone will be happy. Then when you question it, the response will be that is my opinion.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Dreamy nationalists don't live in a real world.

Just pretend that if there was a united Ireland tomorrow, the world will be rosy and everyone will be happy. Then when you question it, the response will be that is my opinion.

Everybody...including 'dreamy nationalists' agree that a UI won't happen today or tomorrow, and a period of adjustment will be required and potentially there will be some pain.
If our current difficulties in the South show anything it is that we are prepared for a good deal of pain if it pays off.

Two things; I believe like many others that economically, culturally and socially a United Ireland will pay off and I believe that our current difficulties will be sorted leaving a leaner and much better off Republic, it is why I am not on the street protesting and why I believe there is no unrest. We know a job of work has to be done.

Couple that with the British not wanting to stump up for the excesses of a failed statelet and you have stars coming into alignment.
What is facing the North sooner or later is a massive trimming of the money being spent on it from Britain, your very own Troika will bring down the budgets, of that there is no doubt.

On the subject of violence ahead of a reunification, I still cannot see how a campaign against re-unification from what will be a small rump of belligerents, can be sustained. They can't supply from the south and Britain, adamant that the process will succeed, will come down like a ton of bricks on any attempts to bring supplies from the mainland. Add a watchful and equally committed America to that equation and you have some street protests, wrecking of their own areas but very little else to contain.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Couple that with the British not wanting to stump up for the excesses of a failed statelet and you have stars coming into alignment.

The British have committed to securing the sovereignty of NI inside the UK until the point where a majority in NI vote otherwise. It's not going to happen otherwise - no 'stars will align' in that regard.

Any trimming of NI's running costs, will only happen in conjunction with trimming across the entire UK - the majority of NI's cost to government has nothing to do with exceptional/unique local overheads.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the subject of violence ahead of a reunification, I still cannot see how a campaign against re-unification from what will be a small rump of belligerents, can be sustained. They can't supply from the south and Britain, adamant that the process will succeed, will come down like a ton of bricks on any attempts to bring supplies from the mainland. Add a watchful and equally committed America to that equation and you have some street protests, wrecking of their own areas but very little else to contain.

You either have some fantastic belief in the ability of the governments to curtail terrorism in this post-unification scenario, or a particularly poor view on their current ability. Terrorism in NI was always about a small rump of belligerents.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Everybody...including 'dreamy nationalists' agree that a UI won't happen today or tomorrow, and a period of adjustment will be required and potentially there will be some pain.
If our current difficulties in the South show anything it is that we are prepared for a good deal of pain if it pays off.

You just don't get it. While we have got the deficit down and will hit 3% in 2015, we have been left with a huge debt overhang. While this won't affect us on a day-to-day basis, it does mean that the South could not take on the financial challenge of the North for at least 20 years. Even then, it would require higher taxes. Are you telling me that in 20 years time, if the people of the South were offered a choice of lower taxes or a united Ireland that they would vote in droves for a united Ireland.

Good luck with your dreaming but it will only be old aged pensioners and students who would vote for a united Ireland. The rest are too worried about paying the bills.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Two things; I believe like many others that economically, culturally and socially a United Ireland will pay off .

You keep saying this but there are also people going around saying that they believe the Earth is flat. Stating a belief but presenting no evidence to support it when all of the evidence suggests the opposite is madness.

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the subject of violence ahead of a reunification, I still cannot see how a campaign against re-unification from what will be a small rump of belligerents, can be sustained. They can't supply from the south and Britain, adamant that the process will succeed, will come down like a ton of bricks on any attempts to bring supplies from the mainland. Add a watchful and equally committed America to that equation and you have some street protests, wrecking of their own areas but very little else to contain.

Well, the next time there is a shooting in West Dublin or South Limerick, can you explain to me how they got those weapons?

It is not like in the old songs that were sung to you when the guns were brought into Dingle Bay. Nowadays, the smuggling is much more sophisticated than that. Our security forces cannot prevent child prostitutes, drugs and gang weapons being smuggled into the country, how will it be any different for loyalist terrorists?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The British have committed to securing the sovereignty of NI inside the UK until the point where a majority in NI vote otherwise. It's not going to happen otherwise - no 'stars will align' in that regard.

Any trimming of NI's running costs, will only happen in conjunction with trimming across the entire UK - the majority of NI's cost to government has nothing to do with exceptional/unique local overheads.

The British say many things and have a track record of being duplicitous, eg. 'We don't talk to terrorists' when in fact they where flat out talking.
My assessment is based on what I think the British are up to...and that is a 'long goodbye' scenario, part of which was seen in Marty being invited for din dins and Michael D's sleep over.

Godge wrote: »

You just don't get it. While we have got the deficit down and will hit 3% in 2015, we have been left with a huge debt overhang. While this won't affect us on a day-to-day basis, it does mean that the South could not take on the financial challenge of the North for at least 20 years. Even then, it would require higher taxes. Are you telling me that in 20 years time, if the people of the South were offered a choice of lower taxes or a united Ireland that they would vote in droves for a united Ireland.

Like I said, Irish people have demonstrated that they will tolerate quite a bit of austerity if the pay off is seen as worth it.

alastair wrote: »

You either have some fantastic belief in the ability of the governments to curtail terrorism in this post-unification scenario, or a particularly poor view on their current ability. Terrorism in NI was always about a small rump of belligerents.

It is not like in the old songs that were sung to you when the guns were brought into Dingle Bay. Nowadays, the smuggling is much more sophisticated than that. Our security forces cannot prevent child prostitutes, drugs and gang weapons being smuggled into the country, how will it be any different for loyalist terrorists?

Even at the height of the troubles the Loyalists couldn't effectively mount an operation in the South without the collusion of the security forces, that won't be available and said 'security forces' will be their enemies.
I believe anybody who can envisage a sustained campaign capable of bringing down any new arrangements( and an attempt at one will be expected and planned for) are living in a fairyland.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Like I said, Irish people have demonstrated that they will tolerate quite a bit of austerity if the pay off is seen as worth it.

Such a simplistic view of life, you are equating peoples' financial future with a united Ireland. There is no such link. Once someone goes beyond a simplistic point such as in the post below, you have no answer and revert to type with phrases like

"it will be worth it"
"people will pay the price"
"they will be stopped by the British"
"no selfish strategic interest means the British will be happy to abandon the North"

You know, that is not reality.

Godge wrote: »

Let us assume you are right and that pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist. A pragmatic approach to the question of a united Ireland would lead to a few questions:

- Will there be less violence in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is that the risk is that there will be greater violence

- Will I be better off financially and economically in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is no, as the removal of the British subsidy in the medium term will lead to increased taxes in a united Ireland

- Will I have better social rights in the event of a United Ireland? Access to abortion, contraception and divorce are easier in the current Northern Ireland so the answer is no.


Taken as a whole then, the pragmatic approach in the event of a United Ireland is to say no. Where many nationalists getting excited about the demographics fall down is when they fail to realise that a majority of nationalist will also take the same pragmatic approach and realise that a united Ireland in the short term is a bad idea.

.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Even at the height of the troubles the Loyalists couldn't effectively mount an operation in the South without the collusion of the security forces, that won't be available and said 'security forces' will be their enemies.
I believe anybody who can envisage a sustained campaign capable of bringing down any new arrangements( and an attempt at one will be expected and planned for) are living in a fairyland.

So why can't the wonderful security forces eliminate gun crime in Dublin and stop the smuggling of drugs and child prostitutes? If we were all living in fairyland, I might expect that we could presume like you do that loyalist terrorists would be easily stopped but we don't live in such a fairyland.

Happyman42

Originally Posted by Godge View Post
Let us assume you are right and that pragmatism will be the approach of the ordinary Unionist. A pragmatic approach to the question of a united Ireland would lead to a few questions:

- Will there be less violence in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is that the risk is that there will be greater violence.

Yes there is a risk of violence, but it won't be violence that hasn't been planned for and if people are clear on what is happening and what will happen, then I think the chances of that violence being sustained or capable of destroying new arrangements are low. I fail to see again, where thiss new capability is going to come from, given that loyalists will be unable to depend on state collusion.

- Will I be better off financially and economically in the event of a United Ireland? The answer to this is no, as the removal of the British subsidy in the medium term will lead to increased taxes in a united Ireland

That in fairness, is your belief, I have mine.

- Will I have better social rights in the event of a United Ireland? Access to abortion, contraception and divorce are easier in the current Northern Ireland so the answer is no.

I think a lot of Unionists would favour such a regime!
Make no mistake here, what I will be looking for is a new, truly secular republic, so no worries on that front.

Taken as a whole then, the pragmatic approach in the event of a United Ireland is to say no. Where many nationalists getting excited about the demographics fall down is when they fail to realise that a majority of nationalist will also take the same pragmatic approach and realise that a united Ireland in the short term is a bad idea.

I have said that 'everybody' believes that this won't happen in the short term. Proper planning and time will be required.

So why can't the wonderful security forces eliminate gun crime in Dublin and stop the smuggling of drugs and child prostitutes? If we were all living in fairyland, I might expect that we could presume like you do that loyalist terrorists would be easily stopped but we don't live in such a fairyland.

If you think that a few guns will offer a threat to the new arrangements, dream on.
The arsenal required, the know how and the logistics will far exceed what was available to any group during the troubles.
I still cannot in reality see a sustained campaign, which even if they succeed in mounting one, will be fruitless, and have no credible goals...you cannot bomb your way back into a relationship with Britain, what worth would that have? Be pragmatic here, because your average person will be.

gallag

It's laughable that you believe the unionists won't be able to launch a campaign of terror, how could the IRA do it against the world's second largest military super power but the unionist community would not be able to stand up to the might of the Irish security services? I suppose in your head unionists are just silly head's with no talent for it unlike your republican hero's?

The unionists never had a desire to really attack the south, the republicans were spurned on by a perceived attack on their civil rights and had reason to fight harder, things like the hunger strikes and bloody Sunday and even smaller incidents like rioting youths being accidentally killed by rubber bullet and even fully justifiable actions like killing IRA men in gun battles all served to make the IRA fight harder than the unionists ever were, the unionists were not battling a state, they perceived they were on the defensive.

Fast forward to a united Ireland, of course you will accept the unionist rioting will be on an unprecedented scale, then the Irish government will realise how hard a job the brits had! What happens when the Irish security services kill the first unionists? Could be a poor guard shooting a plastic bullet under attack from petrol bomb, or a running over a teen by mistake, will the prisons start filling? Will the unionists have their hunger strikers? Tense situations with rioters and young untrained solders can soon spiral into a bloody Sunday.

Then the unionists would be at the same point of the CNR community in the 60's & 70's, they would have the hunger and a state to attack, remember one of the biggest employers of the unionist community has been the army, thousands of trained solders in the unionist ranks the question in this seniero is could the Irish government fight back?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The British say many things and have a track record of being duplicitous, eg. 'We don't talk to terrorists' when in fact they where flat out talking.

Or they're being perfectly straightforward. I really have to wonder at the republican mindset - The Brits were not to be trusted because they were determined not to relinquish control of NI, and now they're not to be trusted because they're intent on ridding themselves of NI?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Even at the height of the troubles the Loyalists couldn't effectively mount an operation in the South without the collusion of the security forces, that won't be available and said 'security forces' will be their enemies.
I believe anybody who can envisage a sustained campaign capable of bringing down any new arrangements( and an attempt at one will be expected and planned for) are living in a fairyland.

Who says they couldn't? Who suggests they had any interest in doing so? And in any case, they wouldn't need to direct any campaign 'in the South', in a 32 county scenario. I don't think a campaign would bring down any new arrangement btw, any more than republican violence brought down the old one. But that's not much solace.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you think that a few guns will offer a threat to the new arrangements, dream on.
The arsenal required, the know how and the logistics will far exceed what was available to any group during the troubles.

Firstly - complete rubbish, secondly; your pal Karl, earlier in this thread, has a different belief:

Think about that. Fertilizer bombs. The PIRA's most destructive weapon was the truck bomb which caused billions of pounds worth of damage in Britain in the 1990's - you can't decommission fertilizer.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I still cannot in reality see a sustained campaign, which even if they succeed in mounting one, will be fruitless, and have no credible goals...you cannot bomb your way back into a relationship with Britain, what worth would that have? Be pragmatic here, because your average person will be.

Pointless and fruitless terrorism, with no hope of success is stock and trade for NI. Why would that change?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes there is a risk of violence, but it won't be violence that hasn't been planned for and if people are clear on what is happening and what will happen, then I think the chances of that violence being sustained or capable of destroying new arrangements are low. .

This is getting into the realms of the bizarre. Down South we stood back for years and refused to support the SF/IRA axis of evil that killed people on the basis that the achievement of a united Ireland was not worth shedding blood. Now you are saying that we will change our mind when a united Ireland is imminent and will accept attempted bombings in places like O'Connell St. the Zoo, the IFSC and Dundrum Shopping Centre (the likes of places targetted by the IRA in the past) as an acceptable price for a united Ireland.

You are mad. There is no way that the South will vote for a united Ireland until there are Unionist politicians in favour of a united Ireland that have the backing of a majority of their community.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I fail to see again, where thiss new capability is going to come from, given that loyalists will be unable to depend on state collusion..

In the same way that child prostitutes, drugs, guns for gangs, cigarettes etc are smuggled into the country every day. Are you just going to eliminate the black market overnight? NUTS, absolute NUTS to say that you cannot smuggle goods into Ireland. Yes, some will be caught, yes some will be intercepted but unless we run a hugely expensive security state (see my next point), some will get through.

Happyman42 wrote: »

That in fairness, is your belief, I have mine..

Me: South budget deficit + North budget deficit + Debt overhang + Extra security costs = Financial disaster. That is maths.

You: Everything will be all right on the night. That is belief in a flat earth.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think a lot of Unionists would favour such a regime!
Make no mistake here, what I will be looking for is a new, truly secular republic, so no worries on that front..

Have you told the people of the South yet? So we will have referenda on divorce, abortion and Northern Ireland at the same time. One vote or several? How many do you expect to succeed?

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you think that a few guns will offer a threat to the new arrangements, dream on.
The arsenal required, the know how and the logistics will far exceed what was available to any group during the troubles.
I still cannot in reality see a sustained campaign, which even if they succeed in mounting one, will be fruitless, and have no credible goals...you cannot bomb your way back into a relationship with Britain, what worth would that have? Be pragmatic here, because your average person will be.

Again, you are assuming that this only happens AFTER the vote. What if there is a real prospect of a referenda being passed (I know, hopeless fantasy, but let's give it a try)? Do you think that they will wait until after the referendum to start the bombing and rioting? How will we deal with that when we will still have several different security forces?

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

It's laughable that you believe the unionists won't be able to launch a campaign of terror, how could the IRA do it against the world's second largest military super power but the unionist community would not be able to stand up to the might of the Irish security services? I suppose in your head unionists are just silly head's with no talent for it unlike your republican hero's?

The IRA support network was an entirely different thing. With the set-up they had, securing a border was virtually impossible. There is no way I can see that Loyalists will be able to use the south as a supply line, and neither will they be able to securely use Britain or Scotland. That waterway is relatively easy to police.
Also, the IRA had allies in the form of states who saw to it that they had a supply of munitions...I don't see anything similar available for Loyalists.

I also don't believe it will be 'here one day, gone the next' for Britain, it should be made aware of it' responsibilities and not be allowed to withdraw leaving a mess behind them like they have done in most of the places they have been. There should be a massive financial cost to them, which I don't see them having a huge problem with given the dividend for them to get out.

The unionists never had a desire to really attack the south, the republicans were spurned on by a perceived attack on their civil rights and had reason to fight harder, things like the hunger strikes and bloody Sunday and even smaller incidents like rioting youths being accidentally killed by rubber bullet and even fully justifiable actions like killing IRA men in gun battles all served to make the IRA fight harder than the unionists ever were, the unionists were not battling a state, they perceived they were on the defensive.

The loyalits would have loved the capability to bomb Dublin and the South at various times. They didn't have the capability to do it without collusion.

Fast forward to a united Ireland, of course you will accept the unionist rioting will be on an unprecedented scale, then the Irish government will realise how hard a job the brits had! What happens when the Irish security services kill the first unionists? Could be a poor guard shooting a plastic bullet under attack from petrol bomb, or a running over a teen by mistake, will the prisons start filling? Will the unionists have their hunger strikers? Tense situations with rioters and young untrained solders can soon spiral into a bloody Sunday.

Then the unionists would be at the same point of the CNR community in the 60's & 70's, they would have the hunger and a state to attack, remember one of the biggest employers of the unionist community has been the army, thousands of trained solders in the unionist ranks the question in this seniero is could the Irish government fight back?

There probably will be some rioting but I genuinely believe that pragmatists, when faced with the reality that Britain will walk away will bite the bullet and make the best of the new arrangements. As I say, it would be futile to try and bomb your way back into Britain. Think about it for a while.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Or they're being perfectly straightforward. I really have to wonder at the republican mindset - The Brits were not to be trusted because they were determined not to relinquish control of NI, and now they're not to be trusted because they're intent on ridding themselves of NI?

Now you're getting it!

Who says they couldn't? Who suggests they had any interest in doing so? And in any case, they wouldn't need to direct any campaign 'in the South', in a 32 county scenario. I don't think a campaign would bring down any new arrangement btw, any more than republican violence brought down the old one. But that's not much solace.

Where or who would they direct a campaign at?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

This is getting into the realms of the bizarre. Down South we stood back for years and refused to support the SF/IRA axis of evil that killed people on the basis that the achievement of a united Ireland was not worth shedding blood. Now you are saying that we will change our mind when a united Ireland is imminent and will accept attempted bombings in places like O'Connell St. the Zoo, the IFSC and Dundrum Shopping Centre (the likes of places targetted by the IRA in the past) as an acceptable price for a united Ireland.

You are mad. There is no way that the South will vote for a united Ireland until there are Unionist politicians in favour of a united Ireland that have the backing of a majority of their community.

Did you ever think you would see Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness laughing together or Gerry and Peter Robinon doing buissness together or M. MG standing between the queen and Peter Robinson hooting the breeze?
All of those things happened in a very short space of time, what we once thought impossible can and does happen.

In the same way that child prostitutes, drugs, guns for gangs, cigarettes etc are smuggled into the country every day. Are you just going to eliminate the black market overnight? NUTS, absolute NUTS to say that you cannot smuggle goods into Ireland. Yes, some will be caught, yes some will be intercepted but unless we run a hugely expensive security state (see my next point), some will get through.

Once you move into the realms of large arms shipments and semtex thing change, I still think it will be very difficult to get their hands on any significant quantities>

And, why? Answer me that, it would be futile. They would just bomb themselves into further isolation.



[

Me: South budget deficit + North budget deficit + Debt overhang + Extra security costs = Financial disaster. That is maths.

You: Everything will be all right on the night. That is belief in a flat earth.

No what I proposed was:
Disappearing budget deficit + Britain saying we have no more money to give you + decreasing debt overhang + shared security costs = extremely possible and doable. That is also maths taking into account the future.


Have you told the people of the South yet? So we will have referenda on divorce, abortion and Northern Ireland at the same time. One vote or several? How many do you expect to succeed?

Again, you are assuming that this only happens AFTER the vote. What if there is a real prospect of a referenda being passed (I know, hopeless fantasy, but let's give it a try)? Do you think that they will wait until after the referendum to start the bombing and rioting? How will we deal with that when we will still have several different security forces?

Look at history and the ever decreasing huffing and puffing about change.
We where promised armageddon over the flag and the GFA and the Anglo Irish Agreement etc etc etc etc.
I don't believe that Unionism can be mobilised in the way it was around Sunningdale and the Ulster Workers Strike anymore

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Now you're getting it!

I sure am. It's not pretty, or remotely logical, but I guess you work with whatever you can.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where or who would they direct a campaign at?

Anything that would hurt the state, which would now include the six counties. No need to look too far, and no greater challenge to blow things up than was presented to anyone in the past. Fertiliser bombs are pretty handy to assemble and park wherever.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I also don't believe it will be 'here one day, gone the next' for Britain, it should be made aware of it' responsibilities and not be allowed to withdraw leaving a mess behind them like they have done in most of the places they have been. There should be a massive financial cost to them, which I don't see them having a huge problem with given the dividend for them to get out.

Or in other words, we'd like our cake, we'd like to eat it and we would like someone else to pay for it.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I sure am. It's not pretty, or remotely logical, but I guess you work with whatever you can.

Well I am not naive enough to think that Britain's motives are altogether pure in this. And Unionist have to admit it to themselves too, because more overt examples are coming down the line I'm afraid.
The British have been convinced to begin the exit, you can decide who or what convinced them, doesn't matter to me.

Anything that would hurt the state, which would now include the six counties. No need to look too far, and no greater challenge to blow things up than was presented to anyone in the past. Fertiliser bombs are pretty handy to assemble and park wherever.

The only thing fertiliser bombs have going for them is surprise, they are unwieldy, dangerous for transporters and in a climate of surveillance, not very practical.
You have a relatively tight and confined community to watch, totally different for the IRA, who had people in almost every town in Ireland.
When there is no practical goal and therefore no real target then I would expect any campaign to fizzle out.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or in other words, we'd like our cake, we'd like to eat it and we would like someone else to pay for it.

Britain will be expected to contribute and will, because it is right that they should. Of that there will be no doubt.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well I am not naive enough to think that Britain's motives are altogether pure in this. And Unionist have to admit it to themselves too, because more overt examples are coming down the line I'm afraid.

Oh, now you're being coy. Your position is that Britain has always been actively pernicious. And made a 360 degree turn to remain pernicious when it suited your narrative. Quite why Unionists have to admit anything based on your belief of what's 'coming down the line' escapes me. It's woo.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The British have been convinced to begin the exit, you can decide who or what convinced them, doesn't matter to me.

Britain haven't been convinced of any such thing. So no need to decide on that score. Britain made clear it's continued commitment to the retention of Union, on the basis of consent, years before SF came to their senses and stopped their campaign of violence. You should also note that the exact same arrangement applies to Scotland, where nobody had to die, or murder to arrive at the same destination.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The only thing fertiliser bombs have going for them is surprise, they are unwieldy, dangerous for transporters and in a climate of surveillance, not very practical.

Complete nonsense. Ask the people of Omagh, or Canary Warf how impractical the placement and detonation of those bombs proved to be.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have a relatively tight and confined community to watch, totally different for the IRA, who had people in almost every town in Ireland.
When there is no practical goal and therefore no real target then I would expect any campaign to fizzle out.

The IRA had people in almost every town in Ireland? Dream on. Here's what CAIN has to say on their membership:

It is thought that membership of the IRA peaked at around 1,500 in the mid-1970s and it is believed that at the time of the 1994 ceasefire membership was approximately 500 with a smaller number being 'active' members

Worth pointing out that the worst single atrocity of the troubles, the Omagh bombing, and all the subsequent murders, have been committed by a group numbering a couple of dozen people.
As to having a practical goal - again - that didn't undermine any terror group before, so why would it now?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain will be expected to contribute and will, because it is right that they should. Of that there will be no doubt.

In your mind. But that's not really a measure that will be taken into account.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain will be expected to contribute and will, because it is right that they should. Of that there will be no doubt.

Expected by who?

Why should the British tax payer pay for Irish unity.

Although I'm sure they will.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Oh, now you're being coy. Your position is that Britain has always been actively pernicious. And made a 360 degree turn to remain pernicious when it suited your narrative. Quite why Unionists have to admit anything based on your belief of what's 'coming down the line' escapes me. It's woo.

Not being coy at all, I just don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some. There is always an agenda in everything they do,
All Unionists have to do is take the rose tinted glasses off and look at the fundamental sea change in British behaviour in the last 20 years.

Britain haven't been convinced of any such thing. So no need to decide on that score. Britain made clear it's continued commitment to the retention of Union, on the basis of consent, years before SF came to their senses and stopped their campaign of violence. You should also note that the exact same arrangement applies to Scotland, where nobody had to die, or murder to arrive at the same destination.

Britain has committed itself to be neutral on the subject, which exposes a huge flank on the Unionist side. That is the change, what that will mean in the future is what we are surmising.

Complete nonsense. Ask the people of Omagh, or Canary Warf how impractical the placement and detonation of those bombs proved to be.

Hardly a campaign of insurrection, there is a reason the IRA took the risk to import Semtex and more sophisticated weaponry.
I or anyone can make a bomb in my kitchem...can I carry out a sustained campaign...no.

The IRA had people in almost every town in Ireland? Dream on. Here's what CAIN has to say on their membership:

I deliberately said 'people' and not 'soldiers'. Safe houses, sympathetic supporters where crucial to their campaign.

Worth pointing out that the worst single atrocity of the troubles, the Omagh bombing, and all the subsequent murders, have been committed by a group numbering a couple of dozen people.

As I said, impossible to maintain without a secure hinterland to operate, train in, and a network of support...see Dissidents for exampes

As to having a practical goal - again - that didn't undermine any terror group before, so why would it now?

That me dear is a matter of opinion and I believe yours is wrong.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Expected by who?

Why should the British tax payer pay for Irish unity.

Although I'm sure they will.

Because they of all people will be glad to and insure that it is a success.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not being coy at all, I just don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some. There is always an agenda in everything they do,
All Unionists have to do is take the rose tinted glasses off and look at the fundamental sea change in British behaviour in the last 20 years.

There's been little change in the position of Britain in the last 20 years. The Anglo-Irish Agreement (29 years ago) made clear that NI was only part of the UK on the basis of the consent of the people of NI. Peter Brooke stated that Britain had 'no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland' in 1990 (24 years ago). No sea change since then. None of which explain the bizarre 360 degree dance about what to accuse the Brits of within the republican narrative. You'd have to try hard not to just see it as kneejerk demonization.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain has committed itself to be neutral on the subject, which exposes a huge flank on the Unionist side. That is the change, what that will mean in the future is what we are surmising.

It's made that commitment to |Scotland too, and no-one is pretending that they're 'attempting to exit' the Union. This is your fantasy.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hardly a campaign of insurrection, there is a reason the IRA took the risk to import Semtex and more sophisticated weaponry.
I or anyone can make a bomb in my kitchem...can I carry out a sustained campaign...no.

It's not? I'm a bit surprised that you can dismiss the major weapon of terrorism over the entire troubles so lightly. I have no idea what you can do with your sink, but if you're suggesting that you can't base a sustained campaign of terrorism on fertilizer bombs, you're mistaken.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I deliberately said 'people' and not 'soldiers'. Safe houses, sympathetic supporters where crucial to their campaign.

Soldiers? You said IRA members in every town. That's not, and never was, the case. A broader sympathetic group to the loyalist cause? Nah - can't see where that might come from. :rolleyes:

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I said, impossible to maintain without a secure hinterland to operate, train in, and a network of support...see Dissidents for exampes

Last I looked they were placing bombs all over Belfast at Christmas, and were responsible for the worst toll of life in one incident 16 years earlier. That seems pretty sustained to me.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because they of all people will be glad to and insure that it is a success.

British people will be pleased for the Irish, I'm sure, but why should they pay and who is expecting them to pay?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I just don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some. There is always an agenda in everything they do,


Britain has committed itself to be neutral on the subject, .

You are now becoming a parody of yourself. Look at your last post. You don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some yet you state that they have committed to being neutral and presumably you expect them to keep to that. Excellent, made me laugh.

I don't think you understand the way that other people think and view the world. Like many extremists, you are convinced by the correctness of your views to an extent that you cannot see that others are like you and similarly convinced of their views. You hold entrenched views on the North yet you expect others (Unionists) with entrenched views to just roll over and accept your way of thinking and accept the logic (your logic, not everyone else's logic) of a united Ireland.

I have long held the view that a united Ireland is many decades away, possibly centuries, maybe never. The lack of progress since the GFA has supported that view. I have always wondered why nationalists believe it can come sooner and I remain open to be convinced. When I read some of the posts on this thread which have no clue as to the way the world works, I get a glimpse of their rationale and I now have a better understanding of the dreamers. Unfortunately, there is very little by way of hard evidence of changing minds in the North or financial calculations that show it will work that would convince me to change. It is all ifs, buts, maybes and whatabouts.

It is not just me. I have been watching the local election campaign down South. The amount of effort being put in by SF to this election campaign shows that they also have put the idea of a united Ireland to one side for a long time. Otherwise they would be working on hearts and minds in the North.

You see, as a voter in the South, the nationalists have to convince me that they have persuaded the Unionists that a united Ireland is a good idea.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

No what I proposed was:
Disappearing budget deficit + Britain saying we have no more money to give you + decreasing debt overhang + shared security costs = extremely possible and doable. That is also maths taking into account the future.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain will be expected to contribute and will, because it is right that they should. Of that there will be no doubt.

Which is it? "Britain saying we have no more money to give you" or "Britain will be expected to contribute and will"?

Has logic gone completely out the window? Can you hold two contradictory points of view in two successive posts?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

There's been little change in the position of Britain in the last 20 years. The Anglo-Irish Agreement (29 years ago) made clear that NI was only part of the UK on the basis of the consent of the people of NI. Peter Brooke stated that Britain had 'no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland' in 1990 (24 years ago). No sea change since then. None of which explain the bizarre 360 degree dance about what to accuse the Brits of within the republican narrative. You'd have to try hard not to just see it as kneejerk demonization.

Well politically I am delighted if what you say is how Unionist politicians view it. Allows SF to further consolidate their position.
But then, haven't Unionists been whinging every chance they get about their position being eroded.
Maybe it's you that is blind?

It's made that commitment to |Scotland too, and no-one is pretending that they're 'attempting to exit' the Union. This is your fantasy.

Scotland is not the same case. I know very little about it as it doesn't particularly interest me.

It's not? I'm a bit surprised that you can dismiss the major weapon of terrorism over the entire troubles so lightly. I have no idea what you can do with your sink, but if you're suggesting that you can't base a sustained campaign of terrorism on fertilizer bombs, you're mistaken.

Go research the subject,
And you still haven't given us a credible explanation as what they will be trying to achieve, do you think the British will relent and open their arms and admit they were wrong? There has to be a tangible goal to sustain a campaign too.

Soldiers? You said IRA members in every town. That's not, and never was, the case. A broader sympathetic group to the loyalist cause? Nah - can't see where that might come from. :rolleyes:

They had a support network that made the campaign sustainable. Try researching that too.

Last I looked they were placing bombs all over Belfast at Christmas, and were responsible for the worst toll of life in one incident 16 years earlier. That seems pretty sustained to me.

It wouldn't have any effect, pointless. But you would have to expect a few loons to try. I genuinely believe most ordinary Unionists would not have the stomach for it.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You are now becoming a parody of yourself. Look at your last post. You don't view the British with the same rose tinted glasses as some yet you state that they have committed to being neutral and presumably you expect them to keep to that. Excellent, made me laugh.

had you been reading and actually digesting what is being said you will see that I have already said, that while they have agreed to be neutral they will be anything but. Duplicity, they are the masters at it, after all.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Which is it? "Britain saying we have no more money to give you" or "Britain will be expected to contribute and will"?

They will contribute a one off figure rather than continue to bail out what is an economic basket case, which clearly needs the austerity we have undergone to fix our problems. Gonna have to happen.