Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

BonnieSituation

markodaly wrote: »

50%+1 may be enough for a landgrab, but its anything but Untied.

Hint: The key is in the name 'United'

A landgrab?

That's quite a stretch.

A majority of the electorate of the island decide on something and because it doesn't suit you you demean it.

Honestly reading your ranting posts the last few hours it's quite clear that you're really trying to convince yourself that the reality isn't so.

I'd suggest calming down on here and setting up a Partitionist group that can look at dismantling the GFA and retaining the status quo because you clearly don't agree with democratic decisions.

That you think your ill-informed and pseudo-intellectual "piffle" is going to convince any Nationalists on here, is the most delusional aspect of it all. Try being more constructive.

We get it, UI is bad ok. Irish Nationalism is bad aspiration ok. Unionism ftw!

BonnieSituation

markodaly wrote: »

The UK is the status quo and has been for 300 years now, well 200 odd, if you include Ireland. Anyway, that is their business.

As I said, people need to think what a UI is.
Is it a landgrab, or a genuine case to try and unite its people.

Also, in a UI, everything is up for grabs, there is no guarantee that Ireland will still be called Ireland, as it may have a different name come the 'compromise'.

Needless to say, arm chair republicans will be disappointed at the outcome, kinda like Brexiters.

Everything is not up for grabs though.

Eh, why are we changing the name of the country? Is "Ireland" a bit too on the nose now? Jesus, some of ye Partitionists are as delusional as beligerent Loyalists.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Since you are being pedantic, let’s put it another way, Is there any particular reason that this land mass should be automatically seen as one political entity?. And if so, would that same logic apply to the land masses to the east and west?

Because most of the people on this landmass wish it to be.

It's part of our Constitution to aim towards it.

It's also the end goal of the GFA which a majority of the people of the island signed up to in 1998.

Have you got anything less obtuse or hypothetical to discuss? Every answer to your witterings us another wedge to another nonsensical question where you put on the unionist poor mouth.

I mean, you're displaying such faux-ignorance at every turn that it's beyond the pale now that anyone is still putting up with it. Even under the guise of "trying to understand my neighbour", it's worn out.

I mean, a Loyalist from a border county, in a Nationalist town, is so ignorant about everything a few miles down the road? Ask my eye. Were you ignorant in 1994 when your neighbours were celebrating the All Ireland win? My bloody eye.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did answer...they should have done 'whatever it took'. Lives were lost either way.

So a full-on conflict with the Ulster Volunteers, which could have resulted in tens of thousands dead..... you were up for that?

It's funny that people are game the horrors of war, from their comfy armchairs.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

It was divided without consent that might figure into it.

Em, there was consent, it was called the 1921 Ango-Irish Agreement or commonly called the Treaty.

markodaly

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Everything is not up for grabs though.

Eh, why are we changing the name of the country? Is "Ireland" a bit too on the nose now? Jesus, some of ye Partitionists are as delusional as beligerent Loyalists.

If/When we are going down this path there is going to be a lot of horse-trading.

New anthem
New Flag
New political/voting system
New powers for central/local government
New public holidays
..
and that is not even talking about the economics of it or how do we order the education system and health system and welfare system.

A UI is not adding 6 counties to the South and leaving it like that. People realise that right?

BonnieSituation

markodaly wrote: »

If/When we are going down this path there is going to be a lot of horse-trading.

New anthem
New Flag
New political/voting system
New powers for central/local government
New public holidays
..
and that is not even talking about the economics of it or how do we order the education system and health system and welfare system.

A UI is not adding 6 counties to the South and leaving it like that. People realise that right?

Moving on from the flag and anthem...

New political system? Like what?

As in changing our current Westminster style bicameral parliament with a president as head of state to what?

Introducing a nonsense like the unfortunately essential Stormont Assembly which won't be needed because we won't be downtrodding upon minorities like the old gerrymandered NI parliament did which brought usús the assembly in its current form through detailed negotiations because Unionists couldn't be trusted?

Why would we change the well-used, much trusted and incredibly simple PR-STV system? Change it to what? What purpose? Unionists use it for Assembly and local elections. Why would they want to change it? What sense is there in changing it?

I mean, new powers for local and central government is a bit vague. One would assume when subsuming 1.8m people into your State you would reorganise how local government is done. It might be a great way of finally ridding ourselves of county and city boroughs as a way to organise local government. Again, these aren't barriers, and most people accept these changes would happen. You just think that everyone is a thick headed and beligerent as Partitionists and Unionists.

New public holidays? Really? That's a barrier to possible change.

We could do with a public holiday in July tbh. So I'm game. Maybe one in September as well. Great. Are the good loyal people of Ulster thinking we should get rid of some?

I literally don't think anything on your list bar the first two as to be "horse-trading". It gives the impression that unionists are compromisers at heart. In reality there's not that much to "compromise" on.

Junkyard Tom

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'd suggest calming down on here and setting up a Partitionist group that can look at dismantling the GFA and retaining the status quo...

There will no return to the so-called status quo in that case. If they want to make partition permanent then they can can come up with a vision for it and they can forget about the current arrangements, the flag, the anthem, the name of the state, the constitution, our history and traditions.

No fucking way will partitionistas be allowed to appropriate what belongs to the Irish people.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Em, there was consent, it was called the 1921 Ango-Irish Agreement or commonly called the Treaty.

There was no referendum on that one. barely even got through the dail

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

There was no referendum on that one. barely even got through the dail

And?

Its not true to say there was no consent when there was.

The democratically elected TD's of the time voted for it and those who went off the radar and started a civil war were traitors.

BonnieSituation

markodaly wrote: »

And?

Its not true to say there was no consent when there was.

The democratically elected TD's of the time voted for it and those who went off the radar and started a civil war were traitors.

You're not one for shades of grey are you.

No wonder you get so worked up.

markodaly

BonnieSituation wrote: »

New political system? Like what?

Well, how will local government operate. Its different from the North to down here. What about FPTP to PRSTV? Which one do we keep?
Will there be any powers in Stormont or will everything be centralised in Dublin?

Policing is another one. Do the Gardai take over or, like the UK, we regionalise the police force and kept the PSNI.

Education, do primary school teachers need to have Irish to teach in schools, like in the South. Do we finally get rid of this requirement or subsume the north into it as well?

As in changing our current Westminster style bicameral parliament with a president as head of state to what?

Well the Seanad needs reforming or it need to be gotten rid of for a start, it has no real power. Will that change?
The president is an interesting one, do we keep any relationship with the Crown as an olive branch?

Introducing a nonsense like the unfortunately essential Stormont Assembly which won't be needed because we won't be downtrodding upon minorities like the old gerrymandered NI parliament did which brought usús the assembly in its current form through detailed negotiations because Unionists couldn't be trusted?

Why would they trust us? Its a serious question. Remember when they said, 'Home Rule is Rome Rule?' Well, how did that work out?
Ireland doesn't have a steller history of treating its citizens that well either. Just ask multiple generations of women.

Why would we change the well-used, much trusted and incredibly simple PR-STV system? Change it to what? What purpose? Unionists use it for Assembly and local elections. Why would they want to change it? What sense is there in changing it?

PR-STV in of itself is ok, BUT multiple candidates in the same constenuency is a nonsense. Only Malta has the same system as we do. There are better systems out there, that should certainly be looked at, and will be looked at.

I mean, new powers for local and central government is a bit vague. One would assume when subsuming 1.8m people into your State you would reorganise how local government is done. It might be a great way of finally ridding ourselves of county and city boroughs as a way to organise local government.

Possibly. I would be a big fan of strong and accountable local government who can also raise their own revenue in the form of property taxes. Id imagine in a UI this will be on the table.

Again, these aren't barriers, and most people accept these changes would happen. You just think that everyone is a thick headed and beligerent as Partitionists and Unionists.

Quite illuminating there from you.

I literally don't think anything on your list bar the first two as to be "horse-trading". It gives the impression that unionists are compromisers at heart. In reality there's not that much to "compromise" on.

Then you are in for a rude awakening sir. I already mentioned the crown and can fully expect at a minium that Ireland re-join the commonwealth. Hell, I can even see the President and the Monarchy sharing the Head of State role.

Again, I think you are very misguided. You seem to think that we can just add 1.8 million people to the country, add 6 countries and we continue on exactly like before.

You do realise that a UI will mean a re-written constitution, right? And because that is happening, everything is up for grabs.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Em, there was consent, it was called the 1921 Ango-Irish Agreement or commonly called the Treaty.

Em, wasn't a referendum, wasn't voted on. Caused a bit of a stir as I recall.

markodaly

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You're not one for shades of grey are you.

Shades of grey?
No, just pointing out the fact that there was consent for Partition. It was called the Treaty. In fact both the south and north democratically accepted it.

I know it upsets armchair republicans, but dem the facts.

The treaty as ratified in December 1921 and January 1922 allowed for a re-drawing of the mutual border by a Boundary Commission. Northern Ireland was deemed to be a part of the Irish Free State, whenever it became established, but its parliament would be allowed to vote to secede within a month, the so-called "Ulster month".

On 7 December 1922, the day after the establishment of the Irish Free State, the House of Commons of Northern Ireland heard an address by Sir James Craig to King George V requesting: "...that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland". No division or vote was requested on the address, which was described as the Constitution Act and was then approved by the Senate of Northern Ireland

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

Em, wasn't a referendum, wasn't voted on. Caused a bit of a stir as I recall.

You are being obstuse.

The treaty was accepted by the Dail, voted for by TD's, who were elected by the people of Ireland.

Them the facts.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Well, how will local government operate. Its different from the North to down here. What about FPTP to PRSTV? Which one do we keep?
Will there be any powers in Stormont or will everything be centralised in Dublin?

Policing is another one. Do the Gardai take over or, like the UK, we regionalise the police force and kept the PSNI.

Education, do primary school teachers need to have Irish to teach in schools, like in the South. Do we finally get rid of this requirement or subsume the north into it as well?




Well the Seanad needs reforming or it need to be gotten rid of for a start, it has no real power. Will that change?
The president is an interesting one, do we keep any relationship with the Crown as an olive branch?



Why would they trust us? Its a serious question. Remember when they said, 'Home Rule is Rome Rule?' Well, how did that work out?
Ireland doesn't have a steller history of treating its citizens that well either. Just ask multiple generations of women.



PR-STV in of itself is ok, BUT multiple candidates in the same constenuency is a nonsense. Only Malta has the same system as we do. There are better systems out there, that should certainly be looked at, and will be looked at.



Possibly. I would be a big fan of strong and accountable local government who can also raise their own revenue in the form of property taxes. Id imagine in a UI this will be on the table.



Quite illuminating there from you.




Then you are in for a rude awakening sir. I already mentioned the crown and can fully expect at a minium that Ireland re-join the commonwealth. Hell, I can even see the President and the Monarchy sharing the Head of State role.

Again, I think you are very misguided. You seem to think that we can just add 1.8 million people to the country, add 6 countries and we continue on exactly like before.

You do realise that a UI will mean a re-written constitution, right? And because that is happening, everything is up for grabs.

It will either be an all Ireland island or remain as is. Setting up another statelet is pointless.

You're forgetting about democracy. If everyone in all the counties in Ireland want to join the commonwealth it'll happen.
The constitution will change as required.
Personally I couldn't give two ****s about the anthem or the flag. New ones? Sure.

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

The land mass to the east being the island of Great Britain is in one jurisdiction and land mass to the west which is the combined land mass of North and South America? Unlike Ireland nobody there believes or identifys in a country of north and south America. If they did, probably a county would exist.

The first of a series on non-answers, no doubt.

I didn’t ask what the current position was. My question was about the contradictory approach.
I’ll try it a different way.

Do you believe this landmass should not be partitioned because it is a landmass and, if so, do you believe the same about the landmass to the east and west?

Try and answer the question! Or else say ‘it is too difficult as an answer would demonstrate my hypocrisy’

downcow

Bowie wrote: »

It was divided without consent that might figure into it.
I feel it's very gracious of us to be willing to have a referendum at all. We didn't have one on partition.
Also considering the history I can see the concern, but we've a higher lever of equality and tolerance than there was in the north.

Non-answer number 2.
I didn’t ask for a history lesson. I reiterated the question on my last post so I’ll not take up space by repeating again

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Because most of the people on this landmass wish it to be.

It's part of our Constitution to aim towards it.

It's also the end goal of the GFA which a majority of the people of the island signed up to in 1998.

Have you got anything less obtuse or hypothetical to discuss? Every answer to your witterings us another wedge to another nonsensical question where you put on the unionist poor mouth.

I mean, you're displaying such faux-ignorance at every turn that it's beyond the pale now that anyone is still putting up with it. Even under the guise of "trying to understand my neighbour", it's worn out.

I mean, a Loyalist from a border county, in a Nationalist town, is so ignorant about everything a few miles down the road? Ask my eye. Were you ignorant in 1994 when your neighbours were celebrating the All Ireland win? My bloody eye.

Non-answer number 3. And contains major inaccuracies.

Point 1 has not been tested but even if it was, you are simply pointing out the outcome of it being one political entity - rather than the reason it should be. (I would guess exactly the same outcome if gb or North America held a vote to unite each of their landmasses)

Point 2 nonsensical in my view. So if either England or USA held a constitutional claim over their landmasses then that would be mean they should be united as of right - very strange position. I am curious would it be the same if the smaller eg Canada had a constitutional claim over the land mass?

Point 3. Simply untrue

Now try answering my actual question

ittakestwo

downcow wrote: »

The first of a series on non-answers, no doubt.

I didn’t ask what the current position was. My question was about the contradictory approach.
I’ll try it a different way.

Do you believe this landmass should not be partitioned because it is a landmass and, if so, do you believe the same about the landmass to the east and west?

Try and answer the question! Or else say ‘it is too difficult as an answer would demonstrate my hypocrisy’

No, just because a place is one land mass is not a reason why it cant have two or more jurisdictions.

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

No, just because a place is one land mass is not a reason why it cant have two or more jurisdictions.

Thank you. A straight honest answer with no ducking and diving.

Now have we all consensus on this as a starting point??

I think this would be helpful and would remove the single greatest irritant for unionists which has demonstrated Irish nationalist arrogance down the years

Zebra3

markodaly wrote: »

Em, there was consent, it was called the 1921 Ango-Irish Agreement or commonly called the Treaty.

The one the Irish signed under the threat of "terrible and immediate war" from Lloyd George.

Doesn't seem so nice and peaceful and democratic with that fact out in the open, does it?

FrancieBrady

Zebra3 wrote: »

The one the Irish signed under the threat of "terrible and immediate war" from Lloyd George.

Doesn't seem so nice and peaceful and democratic with that fact out in the open, does it?

We have to gloss over that fact Zebra...the context is immaterial doncha know.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

I think this would be helpful and would remove the single greatest irritant for unionists which has demonstrated Irish nationalist arrogance down the years

The single greatest irritant is British misrule in Ireland. We want a single jurisdiction on the island whether you like it or not. We do not seek British or Unionist consent on whether we bring British rule to an end. Deal with it.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Thank you. A straight honest answer with no ducking and diving.

Now have we all consensus on this as a starting point??

I think this would be helpful and would remove the single greatest irritant for unionists which has demonstrated Irish nationalist arrogance down the years

That irritant was removed in the GFA and replaced with an agreement about uniting the people.


The problem with partitition was the way it was done. It might have had some legitimacy if the areas that had returned unionist MPs (see map below), formed the border, but it didn't. Instead there was a land grab (and nationalist grab) by unionists so as to make the NI State viable.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Irish_UK_election_1918.png


You frequently make the point that Ireland was never united as one in recent times which is incorrect. In the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 establishing the Irish Free State, the Free State was the island as a whole. The Northern Ireland opted out of this arrangement one day later!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The single greatest irritant is British misrule in Ireland. We want a single jurisdiction on the island whether you like it or not. We do not seek British or Unionist consent on whether we bring British rule to an end. Deal with it.

Then good luck in unifying the Island with that attitude.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Then good luck in unifying the Island with that attitude.

And you are going to tell 50+% to sit back down until you are ready to implement democracy?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you are going to tell 50+% to sit back down until you are ready to implement democracy?

Are you going to elaborate on what you mean by "Whatever it took"...
War with the Ulster Volunteers?
Invasion of Northern Ireland?
A massive bombing campaign directly targeting children?

"Whatever it took"... right??

I guess the guys who planted the Omagh bomb had the same mindset.

James Brown

downcow wrote: »

Non-answer number 2.
I didn’t ask for a history lesson. I reiterated the question on my last post so I’ll not take up space by repeating again

Because Ulster is of Ireland. That's it's default existence. Some portion of it, some mind, is currently under foreign jurisdiction.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Are you going to elaborate on what you mean by "Whatever it took"...
War with the Ulster Volunteers?
Invasion of Northern Ireland?
A massive bombing campaign directly targeting children?

"Whatever it took"... right??

I guess the guys who planted the Omagh bomb had the same mindset.

What do you think the 'guys' that threatened imediate war meant? Or Carson and his wee benign army?

You love hurling insults around about one set of people...your own.

'What ever it took' means exactly that. Because it took many lives anyway and destroyed many lives long before it went into flames.