Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

vipmonty

they will have another one if Sinn Fein thought that was the case they would not push for this one.Republicans know this one will be defeated they are looking at the longer road.The vote puts the question on the table and sparks debate. Unfortunately until the financial mess in the south is sorted northerners will find it unattractive.Down the rod if the south prospers it may be different as we all know England debt is growing and they will have some sort of crash in the next few years.Their is a problem though many people considered unionist said they are not opposed to a united ireland that much but are more opposed to the leadership of sinn fein so in a few years when a new leadership takes the stage it may be also a different story until then sinn fein will concentrate on creating all ireland initiatives to bridge the gap.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You really didn't read it.

There is no plan to keep asking. It is only if the circumstances warrant it that they will ask. If the first referendum is heavily defeated, there may never be another one.

I did read it and I understand the intent. We all know the time is not right at the moment with the instability of the economic situation.
But the time will come and Britain will need to trim it's own budgets (I don't think the British public know just how much their failed statelet costs them.) then it won't be that difficult to demonstrate the need for the first referendum.
In the meantime the British are doing all in their power to make SF as easy to vote for as they can, while being quite happy to see angry Unionism make belligerent fools of themselves.

vipmonty

i agree happyman42

gallag

vipmonty wrote: »

as we all know England debt is growing and they will have some sort of crash in the next few years.

The U.K will have a budget surplus by 2018. You guys do realise the U.K has the fastest growing economy of any first world country at the minute? Things are looking very positive for the U.K, might want to read about it a bit more if you are expecting the U.K to crash.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

I did read it and I understand the intent. We all know the time is not right at the moment with the instability of the economic situation.
But the time will come and Britain will need to trim it's own budgets (I don't think the British public know just how much their failed statelet costs them.) then it won't be that difficult to demonstrate the need for the first referendum.
In the meantime the British are doing all in their power to make SF as easy to vote for as they can, while being quite happy to see angry Unionism make belligerent fools of themselves.

Ironic isn't it, that Sinn Fein need the british governments help to make them electable

vipmonty

you said will have ? thats a matter of opinion http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6227e27a-5b6f-11e3-848e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zKCqEwt1 ireland had a fast growing economy at one stage to not much use if its built on debt

alastair

junder wrote: »

Ironic isn't it, that Sinn Fein need the british governments help to make them electable

Also ironic that the unbearable cost of running NI would be considered too much for the British to manage, but would be welcomed with open arms by the Republic's electorate. Keep in mind there's two votes required for a 32 county scenario - what's the likelihood that voters south of the border would want such a economic disaster on their hands?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

In the meantime the British are doing all in their power to make SF as easy to vote for as they can, while being quite happy to see angry Unionism make belligerent fools of themselves.

Personal opinion at odds with reality.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Also ironic that the unbearable cost of running NI would be considered too much for the British to manage, but would be welcomed with open arms by the Republic's electorate. Keep in mind there's two votes required for a 32 county scenario - what's the likelihood that voters south of the border would want such a economic disaster on their hands?

NI requires fiscal adjustment no matter where it is run from. I believe that is going to happen regardless of the process.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

NI requires fiscal adjustment no matter where it is run from. I believe that is going to happen regardless of the process.

Then why pretend that it would spur on British abandonment of NI? If the economic cost of the place is going to be sorted, why would they worry about what it used to cost to retain?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Then why pretend that it would spur on British abandonment of NI? If the economic cost of the place is going to be sorted, why would they worry about what it used to cost to retain?

Because it will still be money wasted. And not only that, NI is an embarrassment to Britain and has been for many years. They know there is only one option, a UI. They know if that doesn't happen, sooner or later it will be embarrassment time again for them, having to try to sort out the cyclical resurgence of violent conflict.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because it will still be money wasted. And not only that, NI is an embarrassment to Britain and has been for many years. They know there is only one option, a UI. They know if that doesn't happen, sooner or later it will be embarrassment time again for them, having to try to sort out the cyclical resurgence of violent conflict.

Money wasted? You're certainly out to win the hearts of the NI people. The British clearly are so embarrassed of NI that they held their G8 summit there, only in the last year. As far as I'm aware, and would expect the British to as well, there are at least three possible options for NI - the status quo, and (less likely), join a 32 county republic, or some other autonomous arrangement. Your cyclical resurgence of violence appears to be quite manageable at present, and the status quo is highly popular with the people of NI.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Money wasted? You're certainly out to win the hearts of the NI people.

I have no interest in bull****ting, there will be work to be done.

The British clearly are so embarrassed of NI that they held their G8 summit there, only in the last year. As far as I'm aware, and would expect the British to as well, there are at least three possible options for NI - the status quo, and (less likely), join a 32 county republic, or some other autonomous arrangement. Your cyclical resurgence of violence appears to be quite manageable at present, and the status quo is highly popular with the people of NI.

Dealing with NI in conflict is not how Britain wants to be seen or sees itself in the modern world, that's why Unionist belligerence continually drives a wedge into the 'Union'.
Who needs to mount an armed campaign when they are so expert and intent on destroying that 'Union' themselves.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no interest in bull****ting, there will be work to be done.
Dealing with NI in conflict is not how Britain wants to be seen or sees itself in the modern world, that's why Unionist belligerence continually drives a wedge into the 'Union'.
Who needs to mount an armed campaign when they are so expert and intent on destroying that 'Union' themselves.

Thing is. The union is a reality, and there's not much evidence of that changing in anything but the long term, and even then, perhaps not. Britain has a commitment to NI, which no-one but the people of NI can change, and they're showing little interest in any change.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Thing is. The union is a reality, and there's not much evidence of that changing in anything but the long term, and even then, perhaps not. Britain has a commitment to NI, which no-one but the people of NI can change, and they're showing little interest in any change.

I was at a cross community event last night that couldn't have happened 10 years ago. What was once fraught and potentially confrontational was a very warm and social event with Unionists and Republicans meeting and conversing as equals. At one point a man entered distributing Easter Lilies and was greeted with friendly jibing and banter.
In border areas the fear is going, and barriers are coming down everyday. What was striking was that there was a degree of envy evident in the way our economy is being restructured, the move towards a secular society was also remarked on. One prominent and evangelical Unionist actually remarked that he never thought he would see the day.
It is not just attitudes in Buckingham Palace that are changing.
The people at that event would be convinced a lot easier than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago.
I have always believed that 'what we have in common' is what will reunite us, that realisation will grow, the longer we live in peace.
It will come from and begin with border communities, where the conflict was the most bitter and intractable.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I was at a cross community event last night that couldn't have happened 10 years ago. What was once fraught and potentially confrontational was a very warm and social event with Unionists and Republicans meeting and conversing as equals. At one point a man entered distributing Easter Lilies and was greeted with friendly jibing and banter.
In border areas the fear is going, and barriers are coming down everyday. What was striking was that there was a degree of envy evident in the way our economy is being restructured, the move towards a secular society was also remarked on. One prominent and evangelical Unionist actually remarked that he never thought he would see the day.
It is not just attitudes in Buckingham Palace that are changing.
The people at that event would be convinced a lot easier than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago.
I have always believed that 'what we have in common' is what will reunite us, that realisation will grow, the longer we live in peace.
It will come from and begin with border communities, where the conflict was the most bitter and intractable.

Sounds like a great advertisement for the status quo.

ChicagoJoe

gallag wrote: »

The U.K will have a budget surplus by 2018. You guys do realise the U.K has the fastest growing economy of any first world country at the minute? Things are looking very positive for the U.K, might want to read about it a bit more if you are expecting the U.K to crash.

Dream on buddy

"Mainstream media headlines today are focused on Britain's record national debt, which just surpassed £1 trillion, a figure that can only exponentially increase unless the entire mechanism of Government finance is overhauled. The truth however is much worse, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK."
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

ChicagoJoe

alastair wrote: »

Thing is. The union is a reality, and there's not much evidence of that changing in anything but the long term, and even then, perhaps not. Britain has a commitment to NI, which no-one but the people of NI can change, and they're showing little interest in any change.

Long term a nationalist majority is a certainty And don't bother giving your wee polls from the pro unionist media, that they don't even fit in with voting trends for decades in any remote way is just tripe.

" There are now 43,000 more Catholic pupils in our schools — from nursery to sixth form — than Protestants "
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-28671003.html

alastair

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Long term a nationalist majority is a certainty And don't bother giving your wee polls from the pro unionist media, that they don't even fit in with voting trends for decades in any remote way is just tripe.

" There are now 43,000 more Catholic pupils in our schools — from nursery to sixth form — than Protestants "
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-28671003.html

Again - your sectarian maths isn't actually proving terribly useful when it comes to people's actual polled opinions. A catholic majority is not a nationalist majority.

Richard

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no interest in bull****ting, there will be work to be done.
Dealing with NI in conflict is not how Britain wants to be seen or sees itself in the modern world, that's why Unionist belligerence continually drives a wedge into the 'Union'.
Who needs to mount an armed campaign when they are so expert and intent on destroying that 'Union' themselves.

This does seem to at odds with reality.

In any case, the Union is not being damaged in any way by demographic changes. The only conceivable thing which will substantially weaken support for the status quo is if loyalists escalate their 'fleg' nonsense. Even then, it'd take a lot to produce a majority for a UI.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because it will still be money wasted. And not only that, NI is an embarrassment to Britain and has been for many years. They know there is only one option, a UI. They know if that doesn't happen, sooner or later it will be embarrassment time again for them, having to try to sort out the cyclical resurgence of violent conflict.

The threat of violence again from the republicans.

Yet, when someone mentions that the loylaists may resort to violence in the event of a united Ireland opposed by a significant minority, you say that we shouldn't give in to threats!!!!!

Can republicans be any more hypocritical?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I was at a cross community event last night that couldn't have happened 10 years ago. What was once fraught and potentially confrontational was a very warm and social event with Unionists and Republicans meeting and conversing as equals. At one point a man entered distributing Easter Lilies and was greeted with friendly jibing and banter.
In border areas the fear is going, and barriers are coming down everyday. What was striking was that there was a degree of envy evident in the way our economy is being restructured, the move towards a secular society was also remarked on. One prominent and evangelical Unionist actually remarked that he never thought he would see the day.
It is not just attitudes in Buckingham Palace that are changing.
The people at that event would be convinced a lot easier than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago.
I have always believed that 'what we have in common' is what will reunite us, that realisation will grow, the longer we live in peace.
It will come from and begin with border communities, where the conflict was the most bitter and intractable.

It is great that the GFA agreement and the current peace have brought such dividends. Why would anyone want anything to change?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The threat of violence again from the republicans.

Yet, when someone mentions that the loylaists may resort to violence in the event of a united Ireland opposed by a significant minority, you say that we shouldn't give in to threats!!!!!

Can republicans be any more hypocritical?

:rolleyes: Stating that there is violence imminent no matter which way you chose to go is not 'a threat. Go and have a lie down maybe?

Godge wrote: »

It is great that the GFA agreement and the current peace have brought such dividends. Why would anyone want anything to change?

That is what it was meant to do and what was expected of it, however what those with responsibility must never forget is that it is and was designed as and agreed on as 'a process'.
There can be no resting on laurels.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is what it was meant to do and what was expected of it, however what those with responsibility must never forget is that it is and was designed as and agreed on as 'a process'.
There can be no resting on laurels.

A process that can reassert the status quo, if that's what the majority want. As they do.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

A process that can reassert the status quo, if that's what the majority want. As they do.

For the moment.
However the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.
The onus is once again on those with the responsibility and the power. Will history repeat itself?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

For the moment.
However the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.
The onus is once again on those with the responsibility and the power. Will history repeat itself?

Nothing is being deliberately stalled. The poll is only required when it stands any reasonable chance of passing - that's what everyone signed up to.

the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

No-one pretends it has any chance of passing, so there's no onus to do squat until that situation changes. Perhaps you don't quite understand this aspect of the GFA (as well as the seven year polling arrangement)?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

For the moment.
However the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.
The onus is once again on those with the responsibility and the power. Will history repeat itself?

Nobody is stalling any debate.

There is only a very small minority (2-10% depending on the opinion poll) interested in a united Ireland in the foreseeable future so there is nobody looking for a debate (apart from a few internet posters). It is like having a debate about alien contact because 2% of people have reported being contacted by aliens. It is a fringe debate of no interest to the vast majority of people.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Nothing is being deliberately stalled. The poll is only required when it stands any reasonable chance of passing - that's what everyone signed up to.

No-one pretends it has any chance of passing, so there's no onus to do squat until that situation changes. Perhaps you don't quite understand this aspect of the GFA (as well as the seven year polling arrangement)?

Godge wrote: »

Nobody is stalling any debate.

There is only a very small minority (2-10% depending on the opinion poll) interested in a united Ireland in the foreseeable future so there is nobody looking for a debate (apart from a few internet posters). It is like having a debate about alien contact because 2% of people have reported being contacted by aliens. It is a fringe debate of no interest to the vast majority of people.

Which bit of 'For the moment' did you guys not get?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'For the moment' did you guys not get?

Happyman42 wrote: »

For the moment.
However the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.
The onus is once again on those with the responsibility and the power. Will history repeat itself?

Do you accept that the process is not being stalled? If so, we are in agreement.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Do you accept that the process is not being stalled? If so, we are in agreement.

My jury is still out on that one.
There have been several calls for the debate to begin, from the leaders of the party in joint leadership, representing a significant number of the electorate.
We'll see how long the Secretary of State depends on dubious polls and refuses to listen to those mandated.