Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Options
1…2728303233…40

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    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?
    Who mentioned unionists politicians at all? I really don't know what point you're trying to make, but it's coming across as pretty confused.



    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Scotland is not the same case. I know very little about it as it doesn't particularly interest me.
    Ignorance doesn't really help your argument. It's the same deal as NI - part of the union until a majority vote for otherwise. And not a drop of blood spilled to achieve the same deal.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    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.
    What did the IRA claim they were trying to achieve? Was it ever realistic? Well - rinse and repeat for another unachievable goal. I'll avoid the urge to go off and research, cheers. You'll just have to take my word - you're wrong.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They had a support network that made the campaign sustainable. Try researching that too.
    Again - I've no need to research anything. Loyalist has a pretty well illustrated support network, which could achieve anything that the IRA could have (which is little more than terrorise with no scope of attaining their goals, but again, that's no solace for their victims).


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It wouldn't have any effect, pointless.
    Just like the rest of violence in NI then?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    But you would have to expect a few loons to try. I genuinely believe most ordinary Unionists would not have the stomach for it.
    You don't need 'most unionists' - you just need a few dozen loyalists - as I've already pointed out.


  • Options
    #873
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    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.
    If you say so.


  • Options
    #874
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    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.
    If you say so. But why would they be in the game of bailing out the costs of a united Ireland then? It's as if you're further confused in your pet theories.


  • Options
    #875
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »





    Ignorance doesn't really help your argument. It's the same deal as NI - part of the union until a majority vote for otherwise. And not a drop of blood spilled to achieve the same deal.
    Nope, googled it there and Scotland was never partitioned and was never a sectarian statlet requiring a two government agreement to keep it peaceful. Not the same really.


    What did the IRA claim they were trying to achieve?
    We are now talking about what they where trying to achieve.
    Was it ever realistic? Well - rinse and repeat for another unachievable goal. I'll avoid the urge to go off and research, cheers. You'll just have to take my word - you're wrong.
    As I said above...yes it was achievable.
    Any chance of showing a credible goal for loyalist/unionist violence in the event of a vote for a UI?


    Again - I've no need to research anything. Loyalist has a pretty well illustrated support network, which could achieve anything that the IRA could have (which is little more than terrorise with no scope of attaining their goals, but again, that's no solace for their victims).
    The difference is that they would be trapped in Ulster with no dependable supply line from outside. Think rationally.


  • Options
    #876
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Nope, googled it there and Scotland was never partitioned and was never a sectarian statlet requiring a two government agreement to keep it peaceful. Not the same really.
    There's no sectarian statelet in Ireland either, and last I heard, the issue was staying within, or leaving the Union, so it seems like pretty much exactly the same issue. But as you say, you've been ignorant of that fact until now, so I guess it's understandable.


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    We are now talking about what they where trying to achieve.

    As I said above...yes it was achievable.
    Any chance of showing a credible goal for loyalist/unionist violence in the event of a vote for a UI?
    Brits out? Eire Nua? 32 county socialist republic? It demonstrably wasn't. You've learned nothing from those 35 years, have you? The goal for a campaign of loyalist violence would be just as unachievable as that of the IRA. But slow learners are easily found in this conflict.


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The difference is that they would be trapped in Ulster with no dependable supply line from outside. Think rationally.
    They wouldn't be any more 'trapped' than republican terrorists were/are. Again the RIRA have sustained a campaign of violence for 16 years, including the worst single atrocity of the troubles. You're in denial if you think that loyalists couldn't achieve the same, or worse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    There's no sectarian statelet in Ireland either,
    Did I say there was? Republicans stood up to and got rid of it. It won't be coming back.

    and last I heard, the issue was staying within, or leaving the Union, so it seems like pretty much exactly the same issue. But as you say, you've been ignorant of that fact until now, so I guess it's understandable.
    The issues are entirely different, there are two governments and partition involved here. Stop being silly Alastair.



    Brits out? Eire Nua? 32 county socialist republic? It demonstrably wasn't. You've learned nothing from those 35 years, have you? The goal for a campaign of loyalist violence would be just as unachievable as that of the IRA. But slow learners are easily found in this conflict.

    Would we be here had the IRA campaign not happened...in my opinion, no, we wouldn't. You disagree. We are entitled to our opinions.

    At least we agree that a campaign by Loyalists/Unionists would be pointless.



    They wouldn't be any more 'trapped' than republican terrorists were/are. Again the RIRA have sustained a campaign of violence for 16 years, including the worst single atrocity of the troubles. You're in denial if you think that loyalists couldn't achieve the same, or worse.

    RIRA operate in the same way as the PIRA, the Omagh bomb was driven from Dundalk allegedly.
    Loyalists could not do that, they would be much more constrained and contained.
    They managed to get bombs to Dublin and Monaghan but only with security forces collusion. That is the only reason we didn't have more, it just wasn't logistically possible.


  • Options
    #878
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Did I say there was? Republicans stood up to and got rid of it. It won't be coming back.
    The British did rather more to get rid of a sectarian state. Republicans didn't get rid of anything until they stole the clothes of the SDLP.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The issues are entirely different, there are two governments and partition involved here. Stop being silly Alastair.
    There are two governments involved - the Scottish and the UK governments. Partition would be the consequence of Scottish independence. The issues are precisely the same - breaking away from Union through the popular vote.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Would we be here had the IRA campaign not happened...in my opinion, no, we wouldn't. You disagree. We are entitled to our opinions.
    We would be in the same boat as the Scots. As I say, you've learned nothing from 35 years of failure.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    At least we agree that a campaign by Loyalists/Unionists would be pointless.
    As the republican campaign was. Yes.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    RIRA operate in the same way as the PIRA, the Omagh bomb was driven from Dundalk allegedly.
    Loyalists could not do that, they would be much more constrained and contained.
    They managed to get bombs to Dublin and Monaghan but only with security forces collusion. That is the only reason we didn't have more, it just wasn't logistically possible.
    Your denial is something special alright. You think there's some special skill in putting a bomb together that requires a Dundalk address? You keep repeating the same guff about Monaghan/Dublin, but as every inquiry has shown, the bombs were no different to other loyalist bombs planted over NI beforehand. They didn't need any security forces collusion to make the bombs, and they certainly didn't need any help in driving them south of the border. Your fantasy of inept loyalists without a broader sympathy base and ample access to secure bomb making resources, is frankly, naive.


  • Options
    #879
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The British did rather more to get rid of a sectarian state. Republicans didn't get rid of anything until they stole the clothes of the SDLP.

    The British shored up the sectarian statlet and caused the situation to ignite. Basic history there.


    There are two governments involved - the Scottish and the UK governments. Partition would be the consequence of Scottish independence. The issues are precisely the same - breaking away from Union through the popular vote.

    Independence will be by consent for the Scots, Partition was forced on Ireland.
    Different issues.


    We would be in the same boat as the Scots. As I say, you've learned nothing from 35 years of failure.

    How long have the Scots been waiting to vote on independence again?
    We absolutely wouldn't be this far down the road. But if you can't even be critical of SDLP dithering and mistakes then I understand you have no hope of seeing that.



    Your denial is something special alright. You think there's some special skill in putting a bomb together that requires a Dundalk address? You keep repeating the same guff about Monaghan/Dublin, but as every inquiry has shown, the bombs were no different to other loyalist bombs planted over NI beforehand. They didn't need any security forces collusion to make the bombs, and they certainly didn't need any help in driving them south of the border. Your fantasy of inept loyalists without a broader sympathy base and ample access to secure bomb making resources, is frankly, naive.

    They may have a sympathy base but it will be a constrained and hemmed in one.
    I cannot see where they will be supplied from and logisticaly how they will get a secure supply in. My eyes are wide open, the world is a changed place, if you are moving large volume of armaments then you are going to attract attention, a group like the IRA would find it difficult in today's climate.


  • Options
    #880
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    Your fantasy of inept loyalists without a broader sympathy base and ample access to secure bomb making resources, is frankly, naive.

    In the event of a UI, or moves toward it, to what ends would loyalist violence be? A 'West Bank' style arrangement with loyalist enclaves controlled by Loyalist paramilitaries?


  • Options
    #881
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The British shored up the sectarian statlet and caused the situation to ignite. Basic history there.
    Basic republican narrative, but not one that tally's with the facts.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Independence will be by consent for the Scots, Partition was forced on Ireland.
    Different issues.
    Partition was a consequence of Irish demands - North and South. The British just responded to those demands. A 32 county Ireland will be derived from the consent of the voters of NI. Same issue.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    How long have the Scots been waiting to vote on independence again?
    We absolutely wouldn't be this far down the road. But if you can't even be critical of SDLP dithering and mistakes then I understand you have no hope of seeing that.
    You're quite assured for a man who knew nothing about the issue of Scottish independence a few hours ago. Bottom line is that a vote on Scottish independence is likely to happen before a vote in NI, and with the bonus of no thousands murdered for that process. Quite a damning verdict for the merits of the 'Republican Movement's' strategy in NI.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They may have a sympathy base but it will be a constrained and hemmed in one.
    I cannot see where they will be supplied from and logisticaly how they will get a secure supply in. My eyes are wide open, the world is a changed place, if you are moving large volume of armaments then you are going to attract attention, a group like the IRA would find it difficult in today's climate.
    You can't see alright. The climate for leaving fertilizer bombs in public spaces is no more difficult now than it was in Omagh. Building such bombs just needs a shed with a bit of seclusion - it doesn't require any complex logistics or Percival security measures. It also doesn't require large numbers of people. The world is precisely the same as it was 16 years ago in that regard - possibly even less secure, and most definitely less secure under a 32 county Irish security arrangement - with much of that expertise under the umbrella of the British security presence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    In the event of a UI, or moves toward it, to what ends would loyalist violence be? A 'West Bank' style arrangement with loyalist enclaves controlled by Loyalist paramilitaries?

    Is that any more ludicrous than 'Free Derry', 'Victory in '73', or 'Eire Nua'?


  • Options
    #883
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    The climate for leaving fertilizer bombs in public spaces is no more difficult now than it was in Omagh.

    If former 'loyalists' (they'd surely be disloyal for their actions) were to manage to start blowing things up (I don't believe they'd have the capability, will, support network, or endgame) but let's just pretend they did, to what ends would be their actions?


  • Options
    #884
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    If former 'loyalists' (they'd surely be disloyal for their actions) were to mange to start blowing things up (I don't believe they'd have the capability, will, support network, or endgame) but let's just pretend they did, to what ends would be their actions?

    They've blown things, and people, apart in the past. Why would you be surprised at their capacity to do so in the future? Their goal would be to subvert a 32 county Ireland - just as the republican goal was to subvert the 6 counties NI. Attainable end goals haven't counted for much in this conflict, and are unlikely to count for much in any future conflict.


  • Options
    #885
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    Is that any more ludicrous than 'Free Derry', 'Victory in '73', or 'Eire Nua'?

    You're answering a question with a question.

    If you could just park your anti-Republican mania for a few seconds and stop seeing these debates as a zero-sum-game you might come up with cogent answer for the following question.

    What would be the ends of loyalist violence in the event of a majority vote for a UI?

    Go on. Give it a go.


  • Options
    #886
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    If former 'loyalists' (they'd surely be disloyal for their actions) were to mange to start blowing things up (I don't believe they'd have the capability, will, support network, or endgame) but let's just pretend they did, to what ends would be their actions?

    They don't need ends, at least not realistic ones. They just need to be annoyed that "themm'uns get everything".


  • Options
    #887
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Nope, googled it there and Scotland was never partitioned

    If there's a Yes vote in September then Great Britain will be.


  • Options
    #888
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    Their goal would be to subvert a 32 county Ireland

    To what ends? Come on alastair. Give it a go. Park the anti-Republican anti-Nationalist mania for a second and consider the question.


  • Options
    #889
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    You're answering a question with a question. .

    Well spotted.
    Karl Stein wrote: »
    If you could just park your anti-Republican mania for a few seconds and stop seeing these debates as a zero-sum-game you might come up with cogent answer for the following question.

    What would be the ends of loyalist violence in the event of a majority vote for a UI?

    Go on. Give it a go.
    You got your answer. There is no achievable outcome for a campaign of violence. There never was. Did that stop said campaign? Is the RIRA sixteen years down the line in the belief that they're going to succeed where the IRA didn't? Logic doesn't play much of a role in these groups.


  • Options
    #890
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    To what ends? Come on alastair. Give it a go. Park the anti-Republican anti-Nationalist mania for a second and consider the question.

    I did, and gave you an answer. Try and focus.


  • Options
    #891
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Basic republican narrative, but not one that tally's with the facts.
    So the arrival of British troops, events like Bloody Sunday, Internment etc didn't ignite the situation?
    Carry on Alastair, I'm not getting into that one.



    Partition was a consequence of Irish demands - North and South. The British just responded to those demands. A 32 county Ireland will be derived from the consent of the voters of NI. Same issue.

    Yes and they were also told it would be a mistake and forced it into being.

    The Irish situation has different issues to the Scottish one.



    You're quite assured for a man who knew nothing about the issue of Scottish independence a few hours ago. Bottom line is that a vote on Scottish independence is likely to happen before a vote in NI, and with the bonus of no thousands murdered for that process. Quite a damning verdict for the merits of the 'Republican Movement's' strategy in NI.

    Different situation again, Scotland was not a sectarian statelet and did not have a minority community being trampled on.
    The conflict ignited due to a government relinquishing it's responsibilities and having to be brought to the table to negotiate. Sad but true.


    You can't see alright. The climate for leaving fertilizer bombs in public spaces is no more difficult now than it was in Omagh. Building such bombs just needs a shed with a bit of seclusion - it doesn't require any complex logistics or Percival security measures. It also doesn't require large numbers of people. The world is precisely the same as it was 16 years ago in that regard - possibly even less secure, and most definitely less secure under a 32 county Irish security arrangement - with much of that expertise under the umbrella of the British security presence.

    As I said earlier (but you ignored) the British will be very very keen to see to it that a Loyalist/Unionist campaign fails. Intelligence will be shared like never before and they won't need to do it secretly.
    Very daunting prospect, hemmed in, no secure overland routes. Almost impossible to sustain a campaign would be my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So the arrival of British troops, events like Bloosy Sunday, Internment etc didn't ignite the situation?
    Carry on Alastair, I'm not getting into that one.
    The arrival of a British troops led to the dismantling of the sectarian state.


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes and they were also told it would be a mistake and forced it into being.
    It was entirely Irish demands that forced partition. 100% Irish.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The Irish situation has different issues to the Scottish one.
    Sure, but at the heart it's about breaking with the Union by the consent of the voters in those regions. Except that thousands died in one case, because of a pointless conflict.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Different situation again, Scotland was not a sectarian statelet and did not have a minority community being trampled on.
    The conflict ignited due to a government relinquishing it's responsibilities and having to be brought to the table to negotiate. Sad but true.
    NI is not a sectarian statelet, and hasn't been one for more than 40 years. There is no minority community being trampled on, hasn't been for years. That minority community voted time and time again for constitutional politics of the kind that brought about the poll for independence in Scotland.Sadly there was an anti-democratic organisation that opted to ignore that mandate and instead opted to pursue a campaign of violence, allegedly in their name.


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    As I said earlier (but you ignored) the British will be very very keen to see to it that a Loyalist/Unionist campaign fails. Intelligence will be shared like never before and they won't need to do it secretly.
    Very daunting prospect, hemmed in, no secure overland routes. Almost impossible to sustain a campaign would be my opinion.
    Your opinion is based on a fantasy. Intelligence has been shared for a long time now, and yet the RIRA continue to plant bombs. Your super-security splurge is just woo.


  • Options
    #893
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    There is no achievable outcome for a campaign of violence.

    Let me explain to you what you're doing because I'm not confident you understand yourself. You're invoking 'loyalist' violence in the event of a UI in a flaccid attempt to make the case that it should not, or will never, happen.
    A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action. Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions

    'Its power lies in its emotional impact'.

    Your anti-Republican/Nationalist emotions, strong as they undoubtedly are, have supplanted reason.


  • Options
    #894
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Let me explain to you what you're doing because I'm not confident you understand yourself. You're invoking 'loyalist' violence in the event of a UI in a flaccid attempt to make the case that it should not, or will never, happen.
    I am? Oh, wait. I'm not.
    I'm responding to the lie that a 32 county Ireland is in prospect any time soon. It may well happen at some point, but it'll only be when loyalists have lent their consent, because without it, those 30% of non-committal voters will be well aware what coerced sovereignty brings out in that small minority who believe they can bomb and shoot their way to an improved settlement. So it'll not arise, because pragmatism (on this and the obvious economic / social provision issues) will push any change well down the road.
    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Your anti-Republican/Nationalist emotions, strong as they undoubtedly are, have supplanted reason.
    It's an entirely reasoned position.


  • Options
    #895
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    It may well happen at some point, but it'll only be when loyalists have lent their consent,

    Lol, no. Loyalists define themselves considerably by their opposition to a UI. The gears of a UI will begin to turn when the majority decide it, loyalists have no veto. It will be supported with gusto by the vast majority of British people who view loyalism as alien and would love to drop the hot potato forever more. Loyalists are all too aware of this.
    because without it, those 30% of non-committal voters will be well aware what coerced sovereignty brings out in that small minority who believe they can bomb and shoot their way to an improved settlement.

    Your parade of horribles gets ever more fantastical in your mind.

    Let's do a little thought experiment alastair. A majority vote for a UI and the gears begin to turn - what would loyalists' demands for an 'improved settlement' (your words, own them) be?


  • Options
    #896
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Let's do a little thought experiment alastair. A majority vote for a UI and the gears begin to turn - what would loyalists' demands for an 'improved settlement' (your words, own them) be?

    I'll answer your question or "thought experiment" as you seem to want to call it.

    I presume loyalists would be more likely to lend their support if there was (off the top of my head):

    A guarantee that the NI devolved assembly would continue.

    The right to maintain British Citizenship

    A replacement of the Irish Tricolour

    Some guarantees on parading, Irish language and culture.

    Apart from the last point, many Unionists would be swayed by these too. And the SDLP have said they'd want the NI Assembly to continue in a UI.


  • Options
    #897
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Lol, no. Loyalists define themselves considerably by their opposition to a UI. The gears of a UI will begin to turn when the majority decide it, loyalists have no veto. It will be supported with gusto by the vast majority of British people who view loyalism as alien and would love to drop the hot potato forever more. Loyalists are all too aware of this.
    Try a little comprehension. I'm not talking about any loyalist veto. I'm talking about that critical 30% who have no ideological position on the union, or who are simply undecided - they're not going to vote for ending the union if it looks like it would kick off renewed violence. That's the point I'm making. As to how loyalists define themselves? As we've seen, there's compromise, and even ideologues can resign themselves to compromise if it's framed appropriately. The British attitude to loyalism, unionism, nationalism, and republicanism is a complete irrelevance. It's not anything to do with them.

    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Your parade of horribles gets ever more fantastical in your mind.

    Let's do a little thought experiment alastair. A majority vote for a UI and the gears begin to turn - what would loyalists' demands for an 'improved settlement' (your words, own them) be?
    Again - my point is that we're well short of demonstrating any majority willing to vote for a united Ireland. The floating voters will certainly consider the prevailing attitudes (as well as judge the economic repercussions) in making their decision.


  • Options
    #898
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Richard wrote: »
    I presume loyalists would be more likely to lend their support ….
    The likelihood of loyalists / unionists lending their support is about as close to zero as makes no difference. They may have no choice in the matter and in time, maybe even one generation, they might grudgingly tolerate it.

    But the idea that they might be persuaded is just one of the dafter things republicans come out with. You might as well be trying to persuade a die-hard Man U fan to support Liverpool!


  • Options
    #899
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    To what ends? Come on alastair. Give it a go. Park the anti-Republican anti-Nationalist mania for a second and consider the question.

    I would imagine if there was a united Ireland with no chance of returning to the UK the the goal of unionists in N.I would be for an independent N.I.


  • Options
    #900
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    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.

    Have you a link to this agreement on a one off figure or is it another of your beliefs?

    Edit: And if they are as duplicitous as you say, what makes you so sure they won't renege on this as well??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Did I say there was? Republicans stood up to and got rid of it. It won't be coming back.



    .

    Which is why everyone is now happy with the current status quo which is unlikely to change in my lifetime (other than a few cosmetic changes of more North/South quangos and some infrastructure projects).


Advertisement