How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Tokyo

Mod:

Continuation of the How long before Irish reunification? thread.

Please note that all mod warnings, actions and threadbans from the previous thread carry across to here.




I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).



Threadbanned Users:
blanch152
Randy Archer
Natterjack from Kerry
littlevillage

Kermit.de.frog

Interesting thread.


Never figured you for a hardcore republican

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote:

Textbook 'look over there 'tactics from you francie-who mentioned brexit?
I understand as a disgruntled republican supporter you will try to agitate interest in a UI but the fact is although there has been some speculation about the possibility of that it remains far in the distance.Do you think the EU will be willing to cough up in the near future?I certainly don't.

Nobody mentioned Hunger Strikes until it was mentioned either. 'Disgruntled' wouldn't be anywhere near my state of mind.

Of course the EU will be behind a UI, it is now in all the EU's interests as the British state continues into chaos and the wider UK disintegrates.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote:

Claiming that the prisoners did it for anything other than prison conditions.

That was merely the vehicle. They knew the attention it would get. Nelson Mandela and Palestinians followed suit, so effective was it. And the worldwide press condemning the British was priceless for the cause.

It was a seminal event in the conflict/war, and altered the course. Thatcher was beaten even though she would of course never admit it.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote:

No, I don't want to partition anything. In order to be a partitionist there must be intent to partition something.

You want to maintain partition for 30 years...trust me, you are partitionist.

jm08

RobMc59

In response to two of your comments in the old thread about the hunger strikes and how Charlie Haughey was unreliable (or something like that).

Garrett FitzGerald (Fine Gael) was Taoiseach at the time, not Haughey.

Garrett wrote to Ronald Reagan at the time to talk Maggie down (which he did). Irish America were up in arms over the whole thing.
Article from the Boston Globe:

"Thatcher’s ­intransigence drove many young men into the waiting arms of the IRA. She was one of the IRA’s best recruiters. She pushed the end of the war back at least 10 years and consigned a generation to conflict."

Thatcher's friend President Ronald Reagan ultimately convinced her she had to work with the Irish.

The agreement she signed with Irish leaders in 1985 did lead to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, and a new era of Anglo-Irish relations.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

RobMc59

In response to two of your comments in the old thread about the hunger strikes and how Charlie Haughey was unreliable (or something like that).

Garrett FitzGerald (Fine Gael) was Taoiseach at the time, not Haughey.

Garrett wrote to Ronald Reagan at the time to talk Maggie down (which he did). Irish America were up in arms over the whole thing.
Article from the Boston Globe:

The other impetus to the Anglo Irish Agreement (which later stuck in Thatchers craw) was that she thought(correctly) that SF would eclipse the SDLP as a result of the huge surge of support for them after the Hunger Strikes.

The Anglo Irish Agreement is still seen as the ultimate betrayal by belligerent Unionists. They have been fighting a rearguard action ever since...rather badly.
Moderate Unionism is in my opinion is over it and can see the benefits.

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

RobMc59

In response to two of your comments in the old thread about the hunger strikes and how Charlie Haughey was unreliable (or something like that).

Garrett FitzGerald (Fine Gael) was Taoiseach at the time, not Haughey.

Garrett wrote to Ronald Reagan at the time to talk Maggie down (which he did). Irish America were up in arms over the whole thing.
Article from the Boston Globe:

My comments about haughy referred to his duplicity,secret deals with terrorists etc.I realise he wasn't the Taoiseach at the time of the hunger strikes but British attempts of a treaty where hampered by him during that early 80s period.Its interesting to note that despite disgruntled republicans claims in regards to the effectiveness of the strikes it was years later an agreement was made but that's airbrushed out by many who would like to rewrite history.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

My comments about haughy referred to his duplicity,secret deals with terrorists etc.I realise he wasn't the Taoiseach at the time of the hunger strikes but British attempts of a treaty where hampered by him during that early 80s period.Its interesting to note that despite disgruntled republicans claims in regards to the effectiveness of the strikes it was years later an agreement was made but that's airbrushed out by many who would like to rewrite history.

Hunger strikes ended 3rd october

tuesday 6th october.....James Prior, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced a number of changes in prison policy, one of which would allowed prisoners to wear their civilian clothes at all times. This was one of the five key demands that had been made at the start of the hunger strike. Prior also announced other changes: free association would be allowed in neighbouring wings of each H-Block, in the exercise areas and in recreation rooms; an increase in the number of visits each prisoner would be entitled to; and up to 50 per cent of lost remission would be restored. [The issue of prison work was not resolved at this stage but there were indications that this issue too would be addressed

I dunno,
Who.your trying to fool??

Brendan Bendar

Should have wrapped this one up, going round in circles.

In my opinion.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

My comments about haughy referred to his duplicity,secret deals with terrorists etc.I realise he wasn't the Taoiseach at the time of the hunger strikes but British attempts of a treaty where hampered by him during that early 80s period.Its interesting to note that despite disgruntled republicans claims in regards to the effectiveness of the strikes it was years later an agreement was made but that's airbrushed out by many who would like to rewrite history.

Inform yourself Rob..events dear boy, events.

Bew and Gillespie (1993) Northern Ireland A Chronology of the Troubles 1968-1993 wrote:

The hunger strike of 1981 had very important and far-reaching consequences for Northern Ireland and proved to be one of the key turning points of 'the Troubles'. The Republican movement had achieved a huge propaganda victory over the British government and had obtained a lot of international sympathy. Active and tacit support for the Irish Republican Army (IRA) increased in Nationalist areas. Political support for Sinn Féin (SF) was demonstrated in two by-elections (and the general election in the Republic of Ireland) and eventually led to the emergence of SF as a significant political force in Northern Ireland. The British government's fear that SF would overtake the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) as the main representative of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland was a key reason for the government signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA) on 15 November 1985.

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

Hunger strikes ended 3rd october

So they get to wear their own clothes-how many died? There was no treaty for another four years.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

So they get to wear their own clothes-how many died? There was no treaty for another four years.

Interesting,if somewhat poor way to move goalposts....doubt you'll get many takers to follow this rabbithole of dishonesty


Tbh id have to admire,your ability to keep plugging away,as 3 different posters have corrected,yous on basic facts and still you proclaim.and post as if yous an expert



If i could attach a hat-tip gif i would :pac:

RobMc59

[B]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Inform yourself Rob..events dear boy, events.

[/B]

I`m surprised you`re quoting from a book which describes all this as `the troubles`:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

[B]

[/B]

I`m surprised you`re quoting from a book which describes all this as `the troubles`:rolleyes:

I don't call it the troubles out of respect for those for whom it was much more than a 'trouble'. My own family included.

But if it helps you to avoid the point...work away.

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting,if somewhat poor way to move goalposts....doubt you'll get many takers to follow this rabbithole of dishonesty


Tbh id have to admire,your ability to keep plugging away,as 3 different posters have corrected,yous on basic facts and still you proclaim.and post as if yous an expert



If i could attach a hat-tip gif i would :pac:

It`s a difference of opinion that`s all,I checked my facts before posting.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

It`s a difference of opinion that`s all,I checked my facts before posting.

Anyone diminishing the impact of the Hunger Strikes is an agenda driven delusionist or totally uneducated on a subject they claim to know about.

You are entitled to an opinion on whether it was a good or a bad impact but that is it.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anyone diminishing the impact of the Hunger Strikes is an agenda driven delusionist or totally uneducated on a subject they claim to know about.

You are entitled to an opinion on whether it was a good or a bad impact but that is it.

Listen francie,I`ve still got my `H block heroes`mug I bought in Bundoran 20 years ago!

Madeleine Birchfield

Why isn't there a poll like there was in the first thread?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Listen francie,I`ve still got my `H block heroes`mug I bought in Bundoran 20 years ago!

You can use it to bail out that boat that is sinking under you.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

It`s a difference of opinion that`s all,I checked my facts before posting.

Its really not,claiming haughey was taoiseach at hunger strikes...claiming hunger strikes agreement was resolved years after it was over,when it was infact 3 days


Like your posts are there for all to see??

But lookit,your free to claim what you want,and thats ok too

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

Its really not,claiming haughey was taoiseach at hunger strikes...claiming hunger strikes agreement was resolved years after it was over,when it was infact 3 days


Like your posts are there for all to see??

But lookit,your free to claim what you want,and thats ok too

I never claimed haughey was Taoiseach at that time,i said the British did`nt want to negotiate with him over the anglo-irish agreement in the early 80`s as he was untrustworthy and a known colluder with terrorists.
Please keep up.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I never claimed haughey was Taoiseach at that time,i said the British did`nt want to negotiate with him over the anglo-irish agreement in the early 80`s as he was untrustworthy and a known colluder with terrorists.
Please keep up.

Sure Maggie was canoodling with 'terrorists' she told Unionists that she never would.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure Maggie was canoodling with 'terrorists' she told Unionists that she never would.

Rather strange statement francie as the ira were against the treaty with gerry adams apparently incandescent with rage over it.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Rather strange statement francie as the ira were against the treaty with gerry adams apparently incandescent with rage over it.

Absolutely they were. Have you been googling Rob?

I certainly never claimed the IRA or Gerry were infallible.

Tell you one thing though, they were smart enough to recognise what it meant after a while, not like the kickers and screamers in the DUP...still kicking and screaming and still losing.

eire4

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody mentioned Hunger Strikes until it was mentioned either. 'Disgruntled' wouldn't be anywhere near my state of mind.

Of course the EU will be behind a UI, it is now in all the EU's interests as the British state continues into chaos and the wider UK disintegrates.

It will be interesting to see how things go after a couple of years especially if as seems likely there is no trade deal in place by December 31st this year and then its a no deal Brexit situation. I think Brexit in general will lead to a reunification of Ireland quicker then it otherwise would happen and if there is no trade deal in place starting next year that likely will speed things up even more IMHO.

branie2

40th anniversary of the hunger strike is next year

Hamsterchops

I found Part One very depressing & demoralising, so let's hope there's a glimmer of light and positivity (from both Tribes) in Part Two

Part one was obsessed with the past, The British Empire came up quite a lot, as did the Northern Ireland Troubles 1968-98. Oliver Cromwell (1643-51) made a few appearances, the Great Famine (1845-49), genocide got a mention as did the Nazis, and the "dirty protests" /Maze prison (1981), while the Provos were praised by some, and The Brits were despised by others. Brits out, up the RA. You are not British, Oh Yes We Are, oh no you're not, Oh Yes We Are!

We hate you, we hate you too...

Dear God it makes for grim reading, and yet, the title of the Thread was ...

How long before Irish Unification?

Let's hope Part Two is a more upbeat thread (that looks to the future) moreso than dwelling in the bleak and bloody past. Maybe there never will be a United Ireland as per the Republican dream, but maybe there will be something close to a Union between North & South, with GB pushed out of the picture, Who knows what a border poll will show?

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I found Part One very depressing & demoralising, so let's hope there's a glimmer of light and positivity (from both Tribes) in Part Two

Part one was obsessed with the past, The British Empire came up quite a lot, as did the Northern Ireland Troubles 1968-98. Oliver Cromwell (1643-51) made a few appearances, the Great Famine (1845-49), genocide got a mention as did the Nazis, and the "dirty protests" /Maze prison (1981), while the Provos were praised by some, and The Brits were despised by others. Brits out, up the RA. You are not British, Oh Yes We Are, oh no you're not, Oh Yes We Are!

We hate you, we hate you too...

Dear God it makes for grim reading, and yet, the title of the Thread was ...

How long before Irish Unification?

Let's hope Part Two is a more upbeat thread (that looks to the future) moreso than dwelling in the bleak and bloody past. Maybe there never will be a United Ireland as per the Republican dream, but maybe there will be something close to a Union between North & South, with GB pushed out of the picture, Who knows what a border poll will show?

You constantly come in here with a your happy clappy nonsense and endlessly defend beligerent Unionism. So disingenuous.

Randy Archer

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You constantly come in here with a your happy clappy nonsense and endlessly defend beligerent Unionism. So disingenuous.

He has a point though. It’s for the Shinners to explain how the status quo will realistically be broken and what kind of United Ireland they set to propose .

Not one single statement has being made by them here to support their claims .

All we get, as per usual, is whataboutry and even some degree of an attempt was made it only went as far as a bland but questionable claim that NI would be prosperous under a UI

There comments also do absolutely nothing to entice moderate Unionists either ,who will be needed to push it over the line, in the North

Reeks of the “breed the proddies out , up the ra” to anyone else

Randy Archer

Randy Archer wrote: »

He has a point though. It’s for the Shinners to explain how the status quo will realistically be broken and what kind of United Ireland they set to propose .

Not one single statement has being made by them here to support their claims .

All we get, as per usual, is whataboutry and even some degree of an attempt was made it only went as far as a bland but questionable claim that NI would be prosperous under a UI

There comments also do absolutely nothing to entice moderate Unionists either ,who will be needed to push it over the line, in the North

Reeks of the “breed the proddies out , up the ra” to anyone else

Certainly cant be any worse,by any metric NI has failed as a state

Powersharing deosnt work,geos years on end without sitting....time to pull the plug and admit last 100 odd years has been a failure

(when meanwhile the free state has prospered,beyond recognition in same timeframe)


Time has run out on the union,demographics has seen to it

BloodyBill

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Certainly cant be any worse,by any metric NI has failed as a state

Powersharing deosnt work,geos years on end without sitting....time to pull the plug and admit last 100 odd years has been a failure

(when meanwhile the free state has prospered,beyond recognition in same timeframe)


Time has run out on the union,demographics has seen to it

As a Southerner that bit about the free state prospering beyond recognition is incorrect.

Around 1916 we were the 11th richest country in the world. We weren't in the 50s 60s 70s or 80s. I can tell you that. Where I'm from we needed snorkles driving the car for fear of falling into a pothole. Things are ok now but didnt we go insolvent a few years ago. Now if your a civil servant in Ireland you're on the pigs back but for the rest of us lifes as hard or soft as anywhere in the UK.

FrancieBrady

BloodyBill wrote: »

As a Southerner that bit about the free state prospering beyond recognition is incorrect.

Around 1916 we were the 11th richest country in the world. We weren't in the 50s 60s 70s or 80s. I can tell you that. Where I'm from we needed snorkles driving the car for fear of falling into a pothole. Things are ok now but didnt we go insolvent a few years ago. Now if your a civil servant in Ireland you're on the pigs back but for the rest of us lifes as hard or soft as anywhere in the UK.

'we' were? :D

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Certainly cant be any worse,by any metric NI has failed as a state

Powersharing deosnt work,geos years on end without sitting....time to pull the plug and admit last 100 odd years has been a failure

(when meanwhile the free state has prospered,beyond recognition in same timeframe)


Time has run out on the union,demographics has seen to it

There will be a lot of introspection next year as NI 'celebrates' 100 years.

There will be some spin engaged in to 'celebrate' it's success.

BloodyBill

BloodyBill wrote: »

As a Southerner that bit about the free state prospering beyond recognition is incorrect.

The free state is among richest areas in the world,while NI was until.english pulled them out of the EU,the poorest region in it



At independance NI was among richest area in the world

(accounting for upto 80% of irish econmic output.....the last 100 years have been a spectacular failure of governece,i see no prospects for it to get better under stormont nor westminister)

Madeleine Birchfield

Ulster was one of the more industrialised places in Ireland especially at the time of partition but a lot of the industry has moved to China in recent decades so until that comes back it's hard to see Northern Ireland ever becoming strong economically again as it was 100 years ago.

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

I never claimed haughey was Taoiseach at that time,i said the British did`nt want to negotiate with him over the anglo-irish agreement in the early 80`s as he was untrustworthy and a known colluder with terrorists.
Please keep up.

You are right when you say the British didn't want to negotiate, but Haughey was not the obstacle (in fact, from what I have gleaned Maggie & Haughey actually got on quite well together). Haughey pissed off the British because he manouvred the EU countries to support the unification of Germany (which was strongly objected to by the UK and France) when Ireland had the Presidency of the EU.



I strongly recommend you read this podcast which is an interview with a former Irish diplomat (Michael Lillis) who was running the Anglo-Irish Agreement negotiations on behalf of Ireland. In it, he explains how it came about (pushed by Whitehall civil service) because as he said, they were unhappy that the only place that British soldiers were getting killed, was in the UK.


https://soundcloud.com/an-irishman-abroad/michael-lillis-episode-339


I'd strongly recommend that a few others here like Blanch etc. also listened to it.


One funny thing he says that when they were working on it in a bunker in Belfast which they knew was bugged, when they really wanted the British to take note of something, they would speak in Irish! He said the British spooks got very good with the Irish language.

jm08

BloodyBill wrote: »

As a Southerner that bit about the free state prospering beyond recognition is incorrect.

Around 1916 we were the 11th richest country in the world. We weren't in the 50s 60s 70s or 80s. I can tell you that. Where I'm from we needed snorkles driving the car for fear of falling into a pothole. Things are ok now but didnt we go insolvent a few years ago. Now if your a civil servant in Ireland you're on the pigs back but for the rest of us lifes as hard or soft as anywhere in the UK.

There is a documentary on RTE at the moment, called 'The Irish Revolution'. This documentary is a production by UCC and RTE, so not to be dismissed. Last week the episode was on the period around 1916. In it they mention that the slums of Dublin were even worse than those in Calcutta!


Here is a link to it: https://www.rte.ie/player/series/the-irish-revolution/SI0000004888?epguid=IP000064890


We Lived in Dreams is the one around 1916.

Madeleine Birchfield

jm08 wrote: »

There is a documentary on RTE at the moment, called 'The Irish Revolution'. This documentary is a production by UCC and RTE, so not to be dismissed. Last week the episode was on the period around 1916. In it they mention that the slums of Dublin were even worse than those in Calcutta!


Here is a link to it: https://www.rte.ie/player/series/the-irish-revolution/SI0000004888?epguid=IP000064890


We Lived in Dreams is the one around 1916.

There is a reason why so many Irish in the 1800s and 1900s immigrated to other countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, et cetera, and it's because those countries provided much more economic opportunities to them than staying in Ireland did.

I think some members need to be honest with themselves that since the Plantations were set up in the 1600s, Ireland has always been poor until the 1980s and the Celtic Tiger.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

One funny thing he says that when they were working on it in a bunker in Belfast which they knew was bugged, when they really wanted the British to take note of something, they would speak in Irish! He said the British spooks got very good with the Irish language.

I always think it’s funny when Irish talk about how they hoodwinked the British security.
Do you really think, given the level of spying, the major wars, etc the brits were involved in worldwide, that a few paddy’s who had zero experience of such would lead them a-dance.
You are simply emphasising how effective the brits were at convincing the Irish that they had fell for their pretty basic predictable tactic.

...but sure if it makes you feel better.

maccored

downcow wrote: »

I always think it’s funny when Irish talk about how they hoodwinked the British security.
Do you really think, given the level of spying, the major wars, etc the brits were involved in worldwide, that a few paddy’s who had zero experience of such would lead them a-dance.
You are simply emphasising how effective the brits were at convincing the Irish that they had fell for their pretty basic predictable tactic.

...but sure if it makes you feel better.

they did though - regardless of what your ego tells you. to say otherwise says the brits were fighting themselves - which would make them even more stupid. gwan the paddys!

Lord Fairlord

BloodyBill wrote: »

As a Southerner that bit about the free state prospering beyond recognition is incorrect.

Around 1916 we were the 11th richest country in the world. We weren't in the 50s 60s 70s or 80s. I can tell you that. Where I'm from we needed snorkles driving the car for fear of falling into a pothole. Things are ok now but didnt we go insolvent a few years ago. Now if your a civil servant in Ireland you're on the pigs back but for the rest of us lifes as hard or soft as anywhere in the UK.

Around 1916 Dublin had some of the worst slums to be found among western European cities.

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

You are right when you say the British didn't want to negotiate, but Haughey was not the obstacle (in fact, from what I have gleaned Maggie & Haughey actually got on quite well together). Haughey pissed off the British because he manouvred the EU countries to support the unification of Germany (which was strongly objected to by the UK and France) when Ireland had the Presidency of the EU.



I strongly recommend you read this podcast which is an interview with a former Irish diplomat (Michael Lillis) who was running the Anglo-Irish Agreement negotiations on behalf of Ireland. In it, he explains how it came about (pushed by Whitehall civil service) because as he said, they were unhappy that the only place that British soldiers were getting killed, was in the UK.


https://soundcloud.com/an-irishman-abroad/michael-lillis-episode-339


I'd strongly recommend that a few others here like Blanch etc. also listened to it.


One funny thing he says that when they were working on it in a bunker in Belfast which they knew was bugged, when they really wanted the British to take note of something, they would speak in Irish! He said the British spooks got very good with the Irish language.

I will have a look at the podcast.I think you're being a bit harsh about Britain,they wanted to release an elderly Rudolph Hess but Russia objected-ive attached a link.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/uk-pressed-for-rudolf-hess-release-from-spandau-prison-soviets-hitler-thatcher-national-archives

jm08

downcow wrote: »

I always think it’s funny when Irish talk about how they hoodwinked the British security.
Do you really think, given the level of spying, the major wars, etc the brits were involved in worldwide, that a few paddy’s who had zero experience of such would lead them a-dance.
You are simply emphasising how effective the brits were at convincing the Irish that they had fell for their pretty basic predictable tactic.

...but sure if it makes you feel better.

You should listen to the podcast DC, because you have got it completely wrong. The negotiating teams got on so well personally, they had a running joke about the British listening in, with the British negotiators correcting their Irish sometimes. He said that when they were going home at night, the Irish lads always said good night to the intelligence place in Manchester (I think) before turning out the light.

Edgware

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

Around 1916 Dublin had some of the worst slums to be found among western European cities.

Correct. And a steady line of men to serve in the British army from both urban and rural areas as the army was a major source of employment. From the end of the Boer War to 1914 there was no conflict of note involving Britain and the army was seen as a handy number

maccored

Randy Archer wrote: »

He has a point though. It’s for the Shinners to explain how the status quo will realistically be broken and what kind of United Ireland they set to propose .

Not one single statement has being made by them here to support their claims .

All we get, as per usual, is whataboutry and even some degree of an attempt was made it only went as far as a bland but questionable claim that NI would be prosperous under a UI

There comments also do absolutely nothing to entice moderate Unionists either ,who will be needed to push it over the line, in the North

Reeks of the “breed the proddies out , up the ra” to anyone else

its not up to the shinners to outline what a UI is - its up to everyone on the island. the first thing to do is discuss it, and SF have regularly called for a nationwide discussion on the subject

Edgware

maccored wrote: »

its not up to the shinners to outline what a UI is - its up to everyone on the island. the first thing to do is discuss it, and SF have regularly called for a nationwide discussion on the subject

Maybe they could start by showing how it can be paid for without resorting to their usual magic beans approach

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

Maybe they could start by showing how it can be paid for without resorting to their usual magic beans approach

They will take part in the discussion like everyone else when the work begins in earnest.
The anti-UIers will be asked to back up their eleventy seventy billions too.

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They will take part in the discussion like everyone else when the work begins in earnest.
The anti-UIers will be asked to back up their eleventy seventy billions too.

"when the work begins in earnest"?
They are the ones pushing for a border poll but still they want someone else to do the heavy lifting.

downcow

maccored wrote: »

its not up to the shinners to outline what a UI is - its up to everyone on the island. the first thing to do is discuss it, and SF have regularly called for a nationwide discussion on the subject

Would you be up for a nationwide discussion on options for the island going forward. Eg rejoining uk, joining commonwealth, roi leaving eu with the uk, Northern Ireland committing to next 200 years as part of uk, independent ni and uniting the island for the first time in history?
Don’t ask unionists to be part of a UI discussion unless absolutely everything is on the table.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Would you be up for a nationwide discussion on options for the island going forward. Eg rejoining uk, joining commonwealth, roi leaving eu with the uk, Northern Ireland committing to next 200 years as part of uk, independent ni and uniting the island for the first time in history?
Don’t ask unionists to be part of a UI discussion unless absolutely everything is on the table.

So you want to tear up the GFA is it?

Why would we leave the EU?