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
Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks granadino. That’s what discussion is all about. I am disappointed that most posters responding just don’t get the concept of healthy discussion. They went off on stuff again.
You suggestions are good. I thought I would never accept leaving the uk, but I believe there would be mileage in discussing the possibilities of a United Kingdom of ireland (unfortunate term but I can’t think of any other) containing two countries but with some form of central government- what’s the term for that?
Yep, some kind of federal system to start with. If NI still kept the assembly going (somehow!) to manage the 6 counties, and Dublin carried on with the 26, and you could try and have some kind of central system to manage all island affairs, e.g. transport, economy, roads,
dunno, just thinking out loud. Something like the USA, or the way autonomous regions work in Spain...
In theory, it would seem silly to have 2 govts running one small island, but that's kind of what's happening now, and again, there would have to be some compromise initially, and if it's a federal type scenario, so be it.
But if the UK were to play some role, what could/would they do etc? Could it be allowing their military ships use Irish waters or ports if needs be? In a post Brexit scenario, giving UK citizens the same rights in Ireland as Irish citizens (or those who wish to only maintain British citizenship, or some law to allow folk to choose citizenship in the 6 counties until such and such a date) etc?
In terms of culture, I suppose the whole marching thing isn't a thing outside of the 6 counties, bar the big orange march in Donegal, which seems to be without incident ever. I'm not sure if groups still come down to the Boyne? If so, I've never heard anyone down south talk about those visits or complain etc, so I'd guess something like that could be promoted more as well.
The legalities around bonfires would have to be addressed. Ban all "sides" from burning flags etc. Leave place names as they are.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
If the treaty was not the wishes of the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, then no, it shouldn't have been accepted. If that meant a continued war, then so be it.
Interesting take, because if Unionsts got a vote, then they would have voted FOR the treaty, so it would have passed by a bigger majority or do their votes not count?
:D
Anyway, continued war.... scorched earth style...
... and you do realise this is EXACTLY the reason why there was 30 years of conflict in the North, not just two or three, like we had in the 1920's?
How many more lives would it have been worth and what was the end goal? A united Ireland? How would you get the Ulster Volunteers on board?
Genuine questions by the way.Why was war totally acceptable to you up until the point your part of the country got what it wanted, but the people left behind by that decision would be adapting a scorched earth approach if they continued with the same thing that was totally fine in your mind a few months earlier? Why are you so comfortable with Irish lives being sacrificed for your freedom, but somehow Francie is being irrational by suggesting the same for my freedom?
Because Francie is a hypocrite.
He was espousing and glorifying the compromise (Surrender more like it) of SF/PIRA when talking about the GFA, but the treaty... feck that, fight on and on and on.... no compromise ever!!
And today, you are still under the 'yoke' of the British, are you not? So again, what was the 30 years war for?Your appeal to emotion and dramatic language doesn't actually change anything, Mark. By your logic, since Irish independence was achieved through war, and cost lives, it should've never happened and we should've all just sat patiently and just hoped the British decided to magnanimously grant independence to Ireland.
Then you don't know your history, because Home Rule was already coming, without a shot being fired. 1916 put that aside.
Again, look at Scotland, no murdering, no shots fired, yet granted a referendum on independance.Would you have made the same argument for a 17 county Ireland? Sure you got most of it.....should you fight to the bitter end, scorched earth style?
Pointless question, as if you want to fight for something it has to be achievable.There has to be a line somewhere that a treaty is acceptable and a line where it is not, otherwise your proposed solution is to just accept whatever scraps you're given from the master's table.
History has shown that the treaty was acceptable to the majority, otherwise the people would have risen up and in the contemporary world of ours, is seen as a success. Only die hard republican types who like violence would be opposed to it today. NIRA types, Omagh bombing types, because that is what you are advocating and supporting.I'll add, to avoid complicating things, or allowing for obfuscation that this hypothetical discussion is purely back dropped in the War of Independence and in no way relates to later PIRA activities, or indeed even later dissident activities.
Ah, no sorry, you cannot make that distinction because the mindset is the same.
Some PIRA members were not happy with the GFA, so they planted a bomb in Omagh and murdered 29 civilians.
That is the manifestation of continuing a war. You do realise that, right?Regarding your position on unification, whatever way you slice it, you're clearly stating that the opinion and rights of someone of a Unionist persuasion should trump the opinions and rights of a Nationalist person. While I would think a hypothetical 50%+1 vote would be problematic, I think ignoring the right to self determination for the people of NI, as enshrined in the GFA by creating new and unagreed standards raises more problems than your solution solves. Let me be clear, I do not want a vote for unification to pass by 50%+1, but if 50%+1 of the people of NI support unification then I would be totally opposed to any efforts to block it, including by denying a voice to express that will. Your solution creates at least as many problems as it solves.
As I will repeat, the status quo is better than a 50%+1 outcome, infinitely better.
One has to think what a UI actually is.
Is it just a landgrab, or Unifying people of different persuasions.
If its the latter, the surely one has to do better then aim for a 50%+1 outcome as its not a Unifying act.0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »Not arguing Brexit has gone well or if it was a good idea. Particularly it was bad for everyone in NI.But 50%+1 was enough to make Brexit happen and it has now happened. 50%+1 is also enough for UI to happen.
Joining the dots is not your stong point I take it.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement