Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

BonnieSituation

Zebra3 wrote: »

Irony off the scale there.

Yesterday you were telling us all that "we, the Irish people" had to have a long, hard think about a border poll despite the fact that it'll be called by the Brits and only voted on by those in the north.

You might wanna be a little less sneery towards others given you don't know half as much as you think.

I'm still not really sure what Mark's anger is aimed at. His nonsensical rants aren't going to convince anyone bar the local beligerent Loyalists and Partitionists.

His constant need to project his Partitionism and Unionist Apologism upon Nationalists is weird and a bit counterproductive.

Rather than interjecting constantly on his and others' ignorant and aggressive witterings like we have done over numerous threads, perhaps we should move on and discuss the thread's topic. I'd say that would be more fruitful and enlightening.

---

Anyway, I think you could call Northern Ireland as an entity, a failure. It would take quite the biased view to disagree. Though I'd say it would be a biased view that would disagree and make a counterargument with a rake of whataboutery about the ROI thrown in.

So we'll see I guess...

Junkyard Tom

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'm still not really sure what Mark's anger is aimed at.

It's anger turned inward at being schooled by people he considers intellectually inferior to himself.

Capt'n Midnight

NI used to have most of the Industry and Banking on the island but the border cut them off from their hinterland.

Nowadays a quarter of public expenditure is gifted by Westminster. And it costs a lot more than EU membership. If Brexit goes south then it would be difficult to explain to the English public why they should keep paying. Especially after stirring up the papers.


Expect the Conservative party to reduce headcount where they can.
Scrapping 213 local councils could save £3bn in England.

NI is overly dependent on the UK state.
the average wage of someone working for the public sector standing at £625 compared to a £479 weekly wage for those working in the private sector.
...
Over half of all full-time female jobs in Northern Ireland are in the public sector

If Scotland gets independence than how much do you think the Tories will value NI ? It's something that NI has no control over.


The politics is very simple. NI will get ignored in Westminster unless the DUP are needed to prop up a Conservative and Unionist government. That's at least 4 years out, and realistically depending how Brexit goes probably a lot longer.

SDLP might be needed to prop up Labour. But that's very unlikely and memories are long. Ditching NI means Labour amongst other things won't have to worry about the DUP ever again.



With EU assistance and attracting more Foreign Investment NI would be cheaper than bailing out the bank and should break even during the next boom cycle.
https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/

downcow

So not one single reason given to support Ireland being different from other landmasses ie that there is some default position that Ireland should be united.

That agreed, are we all actually on the same page ie that the two countries should join if, and only if, the people in both countries have majorities who desire it.

That seems very clear and simple.

Therefore the question seems to be when, if ever, that would happen.
Those who want a UI should be trying to make it as easy as possible for unionists to feel comfortable with Irish nationalism and vice versa.

Therefore every time an orange March goes where people don’t want it or a unionist politician says something sectarian it hastens the day of a UI. And vice versa every time an Irish sign goes up where it’s not wanted or a shinner has a sectarian dig at unionists it delays any possibility of a UI

Ironic, me thinks

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So not one single reason given to support Ireland being different from other landmasses ie that there is some default position that Ireland should be united.

That agreed, are we all actually on the same page ie that the two countries should join if, and only if, the people in both countries have majorities who desire it.

That seems very clear and simple.

Therefore the question seems to be when, if ever, that would happen.
Those who want a UI should be trying to make it as easy as possible for unionists to feel comfortable with Irish nationalism and vice versa.

Therefore every time an orange March goes where people don’t want it or a unionist politician says something sectarian it hastens the day of a UI. And vice versa every time an Irish sign goes up where it’s not wanted or a shinner has a sectarian dig at unionists it delays any possibility of a UI

Ironic, me thinks

That bolded bit makes no sense. How would an Irish sign going up somewhere 'delay the possibility of a UI'?
An Irish sign going up where it is not wanted means belligerent Unionism has lost.

Where is the irony?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That bolded bit makes no sense. How would an Irish sign going up somewhere 'delay the possibility of a UI'?
An Irish sign going up where it is not wanted means belligerent Unionism has lost.

Where is the irony?

You might as well say every orange parade going where belligerent republicans don’t want it means republicans have lost.
I take the opposite view. This is a battle of the hearts and minds therefor Every act of antagonism our use of power by one community over the other is serving against their interests

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You might as well say every orange parade going where belligerent republicans don’t want it means republicans have lost.
I take the opposite view. This is a battle of the hearts and minds therefor Every act of antagonism our use of power by one community over the other is serving against their interests

There are Irish signs all over the North downcow...nobody is less British or more Irish. Nobody has died on sight of them and nobody is foaming at the mouth.

You guys, in your own words, are having great cultural satisfaction having your parades where they are wanted and nobody is objecting to them. If your band culture is growing then you might need to sit down and figure out why that is...cultures don't grow in negative spaces. Keep it positive, keep it respectful and who knows what might happen.

trashcan

downcow wrote: »

So not one single reason given to support Ireland being different from other landmasses ie that there is some default position that Ireland should be united.

That agreed, are we all actually on the same page ie that the two countries should join if, and only if, the people in both countries have majorities who desire it.

That seems very clear and simple.

Well, let me give you a reason. Can you name any of these landmasses currently divided where a significant number of the population (25 % even according to your own estimate earlier in the thread - which may have been a very conservative estimate, but we'll run with it for the sake of argument) does not accept the validity of the jurisdiction they live in, and wish to unite with the rest of the landmass ? E.g., do 25% of Canadians want to unite with the USA ? That's not even discussing the relative size, I.e a massive continent vs the very small island that we all share, whether you like it or not.

Really, you have to stop thinking that this is all due to the nasty south looking to "takeover" the north. Your real problem is the amount of your fellow NI inhabitants who don't accept the validity of your State. And yes, you can try and flip that by saying what about the Unionist population who wouldn't accept a UI if it was voted for. Difference is, that it's.only happening when and if there is a vote for it in NI. So at that point Unionism would not be a majority in NI. Otherwise known as democracy.

As to your second question, yes that is the actual position, as per the GFA. The island will not be united until a majority in Northern Ireland wants it. In my view there are serious issues around the creation of Northern Ireland, but, to use that horrible phrase "we are where we are." Impossible to put that toothpaste back in the tube now. Consent is accepted by just about everybody, bar the dissident republicans, I would have thought.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

So not one single reason given to support Ireland being different from other landmasses ie that there is some default position that Ireland should be united.

That agreed, are we all actually on the same page ie that the two countries should join if, and only if, the people in both countries have majorities who desire it.

That seems very clear and simple.

Therefore the question seems to be when, if ever, that would happen.
Those who want a UI should be trying to make it as easy as possible for unionists to feel comfortable with Irish nationalism and vice versa.

Therefore every time an orange March goes where people don’t want it or a unionist politician says something sectarian it hastens the day of a UI. And vice versa every time an Irish sign goes up where it’s not wanted or a shinner has a sectarian dig at unionists it delays any possibility of a UI

Ironic, me thinks

So all of that insistence on your leading question, and your big gotcha was.....self determination, which absolutely everyone on this thread on the Republican side agrees with?

The only people arguing against this are on your side, Downcow - the only suggestions that a majority shouldn't be enough are coming from those who support partition. I'm glad to hear this isn't your position though.

I don't actually disagree with your latter point, antagonism, particularly deliberate antagonism doesn't help to convince people.

That being said, we both have to accept that there are people on either side who will never be convinced and who will seek out offense. There are people who will argue against an Irish language sign on the Falls Road, or an Orange march up the Donegal Road - as these people can't be convinced, resources and effort would be better used on convincing the middle ground.

That doesn't mean not seeking to have your Irish language sign up or having an Orange parade in a mixed area, it means not doing it in a deliberately antagonistic way.

FrancieBrady

trashcan wrote: »

Consent is accepted by just about everybody, bar the dissident republicans, I would have thought.

It's not accepted by belligerent Unionism either and as markodaly has shown partitionists in the south only give 'qualified consent'.

It will be grab popcorn time when these have to coalesce to try and agitate against a UI. So far no political party or major politician is going anywhere near that in the south. Is there a political vacumn for a Peter Casey or Gemma Doherty type?

steddyeddy

timthumbni wrote: »

I love it. Some of the best people in the world. If you want to take control of it then be prepared for and pay for republican areas within NI to have the
Highest sickness levels outside of Africa. The WHO were going to send a crack team to republican west Belfast due to their “sickness” levels.

You're post is an example of why Northern Ireland in the UK has been a failure. The first post in this thread states that division between the groups of Northern Ireland is indicative of its failure of a state. The very second post on the thread comes from you who compares a part of your own country to Africa simply because they're the wrong type of people. The irony in this is twofold. First of all the division you proudly cling onto you comes from the age old divide and rule tactics employed during Britain's colonial rule in Ireland. Secondly, you're as much a victim of it as anyone. You're literally holding yourself, your family and your country in medieval states of social development for reasons you can barely remember why. Do you even think ordinary English people want anything to do with that?

downcow

trashcan wrote: »

Well, let me give you a reason. Can you name any of these landmasses currently divided where a significant number of the population (25 % even according to your own estimate earlier in the thread - which may have been a very conservative estimate, but we'll run with it for the sake of argument) does not accept the validity of the jurisdiction they live in, and wish to unite with the rest of the landmass ? E.g., do 25% of Canadians want to unite with the USA ? That's not even discussing the relative size, I.e a massive continent vs the very small island that we all share, whether you like it or not.
.

If you think you are disagreeing with me then you have missed the point of my question.
You are still not giving any reason why this landmass, simply because it is a landmass, should be united. You are giving a very valid point of view about a percentage of people aspiring for a UI.

So I think you are agreeing with me that ireland is no different than Britain on that position ie the English should not be able to force the island to stay united if the Scots don’t want it united, and the Irish should not be able to demand this island is united if the Ulster-scots don’t want it united.
It becomes a question of democracy in the area that does not wish to unite.

I do disagree with you that everyone on ere believes in democracy sorting this out. Just take a look at how many posts are harking back to 1920s and beyond to try and make a case that Northern Ireland’s existence is wrong ie the people of that area desiring to want their own country does not make it right in their eyes. Try asking them

And I don’t think that if Scotland broke away that the English, welsh and northern Irish will spen the next 100 years harping on that we need them back or our lives will not be fulfilled and our identity will be diminished nor patronise them by telling them they would be better of back in. We would develop a healthy neighbour relationship with them and celebrate what we still have in common.
I think ROI will mature into this position and are already making good progress

Zebra3

downcow wrote: »

And vice versa every time an Irish sign goes up where it’s not wanted or a shinner has a sectarian dig at unionists it delays any possibility of a UI

Have you not being reading this thread?

When it looks like there will be 50+1 vote in the north in favour of a 32 county Ireland, the British are obliged to call a referendum.

People could be putting up signs in Esperanto and it'll have nothing to do with a potential UI.

As the demographics are swinging in favour of a "catholic"/nationalist majority, it's not them who need to persuade unionists to their "cause", but vice verse.

That's the reality of the situation despite what some on here rant on about.

The British don't want the north. Their apartheid mates in SA are long gone. The Israelis don't want anything to do with them. They've been marginalised internationally and within the UK. Even the working class PUL communities have been betrayed by the DUP. A dreadful party of religious nutjobs with no vision. Dodds driving in from middle class Banbridge every so often to represent a seriously socially disadvantaged area like North Belfast. What an insult to the people there.

The writing is on the wall. And the DUP hasten it by digging themselves into their pro-Brexit stance, probably thinking it wouldn't win. And the effect of that is that it is putting Irish passports into previously anti-Irish hands.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

So not one single reason given to support Ireland being different from other landmasses ie that there is some default position that Ireland should be united.

I would have thought that it would be obvious as to how Ireland is different from other landmasses. Its a small island off the coast of Europe. It differs from other large landmasses that have many different countries in that the boundary between these countries nearly always (read always) is defined by natural borders such as mountain ranges, rivers, lakes, desserts. So, for example, a mountain range divides Norway and Sweden with the result that the people on one side of the mountain range speak a different language to those on the other side of the mountain range.



That is not the case on the island of Ireland. The division is entirely artificial and why the border is so difficult to secure. It is wrong that it divides people (and sometimes people's houses).

That agreed, are we all actually on the same page ie that the two countries should join if, and only if, the people in both countries have majorities who desire it.

That seems very clear and simple.

The principle of consent is enshrined in the GFA (its not that simple though, is it?)

Therefore the question seems to be when, if ever, that would happen. Those who want a UI should be trying to make it as easy as possible for unionists to feel comfortable with Irish nationalism and vice versa.

Its in both communities interests that they respect each other and make each other comfortable in whatever the result of a referendum gives.

xdzdjnm./wq§

Therefore every time an orange March goes where people don’t want it or a unionist politician says something sectarian it hastens the day of a UI. And vice versa every time an Irish sign goes up where it’s not wanted or a shinner has a sectarian dig at unionists it delays any possibility of a UI

Ironic, me thinks[/QUOTE]

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

If you think you are disagreeing with me then you have missed the point of my question.
You are still not giving any reason why this landmass, simply because it is a landmass, should be united. You are giving a very valid point of view about a percentage of people aspiring for a UI.

So I think you are agreeing with me that ireland is no different than Britain on that position ie the English should not be able to force the island to stay united if the Scots don’t want it united, and the Irish should not be able to demand this island is united if the Ulster-scots don’t want it united.
It becomes a question of democracy in the area that does not wish to unite.

I do disagree with you that everyone on ere believes in democracy sorting this out. Just take a look at how many posts are harking back to 1920s and beyond to try and make a case that Northern Ireland’s existence is wrong ie the people of that area desiring to want their own country does not make it right in their eyes. Try asking them

And I don’t think that if Scotland broke away that the English, welsh and northern Irish will spen the next 100 years harping on that we need them back or our lives will not be fulfilled and our identity will be diminished nor patronise them by telling them they would be better of back in. We would develop a healthy neighbour relationship with them and celebrate what we still have in common.
I think ROI will mature into this position and are already making good progress

How could that be a pro GFA stance? Unity has been agreed already by those who support it. End of.

The Irish should not be able to demand this island is united if the Ulster-scots don’t want it united.
It becomes a question of democracy in the area that does not wish to unite.

Capt'n Midnight

downcow wrote: »

And I don’t think that if Scotland broke away that the English, welsh and northern Irish will spen the next 100 years harping on that we need them back or our lives will not be fulfilled and our identity will be diminished nor patronise them by telling them they would be better of back in. We would develop a healthy neighbour relationship with them and celebrate what we still have in common.
I think ROI will mature into this position and are already making good progress

wut ?


At the end of the day it's about money.
NI may be living beyond the means of a post-Brexit England.


Anyway an independent Scotland doesn't need NI as much as NI needs Scotland.

Most of the 'exports' for Wales, Scotland and NI go to England.
Table 7 on Page 35 shows internal UK trade flows 'adjusted' for further shipping from transport hubs.
It doesn't capture shipments through ROI, but it's reasonable to assume most of the traffic goes the direct route.

NI exports stats to compare to the above. BTW only 1% of Ireland's exports go north.



There's isn't a huge amount of NI-Scotland trade compared with what each does with England. So NI might have to consider the possibility of competition with an independent Scotland for the English market whilst at the same time depending on an easy transit. Road improvements to Cairnryan might not get the priority that NI would like. Falkirk recently got a upgrade. And And 70% of the Scottish population is within an hours drive.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

So not one single reason given to support Ireland being different from other landmasses ie that there is some default position that Ireland should be united.

Except Ireland is a small island surrounded by water. Larger landmasses like the Americas, Europe and Asia all have natural boundaries such as rivers, mountain ranges, lakes and desserts (i.e., you don't find many people living on their borders). Generally, you will find like in Norway-Sweden, the people living either side of the border speak different languages.

That agreed, are we all actually on the same page ie that the two countries should join if, and only if, the people in both countries have majorities who desire it.

That seems very clear and simple.

Yes. That was agreed with the GFA by most people on this island.

Therefore the question seems to be when, if ever, that would happen.
Those who want a UI should be trying to make it as easy as possible for unionists to feel comfortable with Irish nationalism and vice versa.

Absolutely agree with that.

Therefore every time an orange March goes where people don’t want it or a unionist politician says something sectarian it hastens the day of a UI. And vice versa every time an Irish sign goes up where it’s not wanted or a shinner has a sectarian dig at unionists it delays any possibility of a UI

Ironic, me thinks

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that you now regret that unionists should have tried a bit harder to accommodate nationalists by being a bit more accommodating when it comes to pariety of esteem with the Irish language? If they were, would nationalists be happy to remain part of the UK?

ittakestwo

downcow wrote: »

So I think you are agreeing with me that ireland is no different than Britain on that position ie the English should not be able to force the island to stay united if the Scots don’t want it united, and the Irish should not be able to demand this island is united if the Ulster-scots don’t want it united.
It becomes a question of democracy in the area that does not wish to unite.

But if Scotland or England wanted to leave the UK they can have a democratic vote. Scotland did. Ireland didn't. Scotland in 2014 was not split up into the places that wanted to leave the UK verses the places of Scotland that wanted to remain. If England had a few counties where a small majority wanted to leave the UK should they split it off from England. Nobody in Scotland and England wants to see their country split even if they know their is divergence of opinion on the UK. Ireland was split without consent. It was one jurisdiction before the UK, it was one in the Uk up until 1921 and then it was split without a democratic vote by its people.

I see you refer to yourself as Northan Irish and refer to NI as ''my wee little country''. Would you be impressed if it got split up? Lets say Down now had a republican majority and Antrim didn't would you like to see NI split up on that basis?

Irish people believe that Ireland should never have been split and always identify in Ireland and everyone here as Irish. Most people in the UK ( English, welsh, Scots)as well as the world also refer to people from both ROI and NI as just Irish. It still despite being legally split seen as one nationality.

downcow

Zebra3 wrote: »

Have you not being reading this thread?

When it looks like there will be 50+1 vote in the north in favour of a 32 county Ireland, the British are obliged to call a referendum.

People could be putting up signs in Esperanto and it'll have nothing to do with a potential UI.

As the demographics are swinging in favour of a "catholic"/nationalist majority, it's not them who need to persuade unionists to their "cause", but vice verse.
.

Your analysis could really be much more incorrect.
Your biggest mistake is using the term ‘catholic/nationalist’
This shows you are on a very dated sectarian agenda.

The growing catholic population is irrelevant. Poll after poll demonstrates that 50+++% of ni Catholics are not ready for a UI. While Protestants remain almost 100% opposed to it.

If you are still on the 70s agenda of weather will outbreeding them, it is both sectarian and seriously misguided.

If your type don’t do a better job of convincing moderate prods to support UI then you have no chance , as unionist are evidently doing an excellent job of making moderate Catholics think that their future is together in a UI.

And while ROI don’t genuinely engage with unionists any try to make their country more respectful of our indenture then, ironically, they are doing those of us who oppose a UI a huge favour. Thank you!

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are Irish signs all over the North downcow...nobody is less British or more Irish. Nobody has died on sight of them and nobody is foaming at the mouth.

Francie. Just this week our council put up Irish signs in my area at significant cost and sf done posy antagonistic photos beside them. The same councillors were very upset (and pretended to be surprised) when the signs were gone by the next morning. There there is a bit of non peaceful activity I won’t be condemning

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

But if Scotland or England wanted to leave the UK they can have a democratic vote. Scotland did. Ireland didn't. Scotland in 2014 was not split up into the places that wanted to leave the UK verses the places of Scotland that wanted to remain. If England had a few counties where a small majority wanted to leave the UK should they split it off from England. Nobody in Scotland and England wants to see their country split even if they know their is divergence of opinion on the UK. Ireland was split without consent. It was one jurisdiction before the UK, it was one in the Uk up until 1921 and then it was split without a democratic vote by its people.

I see you refer to yourself as Northan Irish and refer to NI as ''my wee little country''. Would you be impressed if it got split up? Lets say Down now had a republican majority and Antrim didn't would you like to see NI split up on that basis?

Irish people believe that Ireland should never have been split and always identify in Ireland and everyone here as Irish. Most people in the UK ( English, welsh, Scots)as well as the world also refer to people from both ROI and NI as just Irish. It still despite being legally split seen as one nationality.

A lot of wishful thinking in this post.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie. Just this week our council put up Irish signs in my area at significant cost and sf done posy antagonistic photos beside them. The same councillors were very upset (and pretended to be surprised) when the signs were gone by the next morning. There there is a bit of non peaceful activity I won’t be condemning

You are living in an area where there is clearly a lot of belligerent Unionists. Drive around your 'wee country' sometime, there are Irish signs in more places than there aren't. That is only going to increase.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are living in an area where there is clearly a lot of belligerent Unionists. Drive around your 'wee country' sometime, there are Irish signs in more places than there aren't. That is only going to increase.

Same with flags. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Chiparus

downcow wrote: »

Your analysis could really be much more incorrect.
Your biggest mistake is using the term ‘catholic/nationalist’
This shows you are on a very dated sectarian agenda.

The growing catholic population is irrelevant. Poll after poll demonstrates that 50+++% of ni Catholics are not ready for a UI. While Protestants remain almost 100% opposed to it.

If you are still on the 70s agenda of weather will outbreeding them, it is both sectarian and seriously misguided.

If your type don’t do a better job of convincing moderate prods to support UI then you have no chance , as unionist are evidently doing an excellent job of making moderate Catholics think that their future is together in a UI.

And while ROI don’t genuinely engage with unionists any try to make their country more respectful of our indenture then, ironically, they are doing those of us who oppose a UI a huge favour. Thank you!

Amazing how so many Catholics despite not wanting a UI, vote for SF .

It will be interesting , going forward thet there will be a SF first minister in the near future- it will be interesting to see that this could be in perpetuatry

Sunny Disposition

Opinion polls far in advance of a referendum aren’t to be trusted, we all know that. No doubt the picture would only become clear once the actual campaign began. How people currently vote in elections is at least as Indicative as opinion polls.
Would imagine nationalists would use the economy to try and convince moderate unionists. The potential danger of loyalist terrorists is probably the only argument unionism has to convince moderate nationalists. Might it be enough?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are living in an area where there is clearly a lot of belligerent Unionists. Drive around your 'wee country' sometime, there are Irish signs in more places than there aren't. That is only going to increase.

Same with flags. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

But if Scotland or England wanted to leave the UK they can have a democratic vote. Scotland did. Ireland didn't. Scotland in 2014 was not split up into the places that wanted to leave the UK verses the places of Scotland that wanted to remain. If England had a few counties where a small majority wanted to leave the UK should they split it off from England. Nobody in Scotland and England wants to see their country split even if they know their is divergence of opinion on the UK. Ireland was split without consent. It was one jurisdiction before the UK, it was one in the Uk up until 1921 and then it was split without a democratic vote by its people.

I see you refer to yourself as Northan Irish and refer to NI as ''my wee little country''. Would you be impressed if it got split up? Lets say Down now had a republican majority and Antrim didn't would you like to see NI split up on that basis?

Irish people believe that Ireland should never have been split and always identify in Ireland and everyone here as Irish. Most people in the UK ( English, welsh, Scots)as well as the world also refer to people from both ROI and NI as just Irish. It still despite being legally split seen as one nationality.

A lot of wishful thinking in this post.

Capt'n Midnight

The two tribes Unionists and Nationalists are now in a minority in NI. So Catholic vs Protestant is becoming redundant as are discussions based entirely on black and white.

It's now hearts and minds rather than ideology. And that takes lots of money.

The grass will look greener on this side of the border if Brexit goes south, or if Westminster tightens the purse strings.


The difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland is whether the big decisions were made in Dublin or Westminster. For most intents and purposes NI is still a financially dependent region of the UK, and more so than at partition.

Scotland has 59 MP's. It's not that long ago that Labour, Tory and Lib Dems had only one MP each. It makes it harder for an English party to win a UK election. Something that NI should care to remember.

Zebra3

downcow wrote: »

Your analysis could really be much more incorrect.
Your biggest mistake is using the term ‘catholic/nationalist’
This shows you are on a very dated sectarian agenda.

The growing catholic population is irrelevant. Poll after poll demonstrates that 50+++% of ni Catholics are not ready for a UI. While Protestants remain almost 100% opposed to it.

If you are still on the 70s agenda of weather will outbreeding them, it is both sectarian and seriously misguided.

If your type don’t do a better job of convincing moderate prods to support UI then you have no chance , as unionist are evidently doing an excellent job of making moderate Catholics think that their future is together in a UI.

And while ROI don’t genuinely engage with unionists any try to make their country more respectful of our indenture then, ironically, they are doing those of us who oppose a UI a huge favour. Thank you!

Nice attempt to smear me as some sort of bigot, but I'm fully aware that it is no guarantee of how people will vote, but it's a helluva an indicator.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43823506

And as time goes by, and the gap widens in favour of that "catholic"/nationalist majority, it means unionists are relying on more and more of "them 'uns" to save them.

Which is actually ironic, as it means every single orange march through an unwanted area makes a UI closer.

Haha, what do you know??!

We've come full circle!!!

Don't forget to mention how a backwards looking party like the DUP is alienating potential young, liberal recruits. The future for the DUP and unionism is bleak, as they are the ones most likely to be losing their future leaders to the likes of Alliance, and not SF.

And I'd actually say that SF's next leadership is likely to be far, far stronger than its' current one.

Who in the DUP is coming through to take on the likes of Ó Broin, Doherty, and Finucane?

downcow

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nice attempt to smear me as some sort of bigot, but I'm fully aware that it is no guarantee of how people will vote, but it's a helluva an indicator.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43823506

And as time goes by, and the gap widens in favour of that "catholic"/nationalist majority, it means unionists are relying on more and more of "them 'uns" to save them.

Which is actually ironic, as it means every single orange march through an unwanted area makes a UI closer.

Haha, what do you know??!

We've come full circle!!!

Don't forget to mention how a backwards looking party like the DUP is alienating potential young, liberal recruits. The future for the DUP and unionism is bleak, as they are the ones most likely to be losing their future leaders to the likes of Alliance, and not SF.

And I'd actually say that SF's next leadership is likely to be far, far stronger than its' current one.

Who in the DUP is coming through to take on the likes of Ó Broin, Doherty, anFinucane?

You said it, not me.

Actually I agree with your statement on the dup. But thankfully Sinn Fein are more than counterbalancing that

As for Sinn Fein. We’ve been told for years about their wonderful new leadership, and now just take a wee look at their disgraceful behaviour - here is examples just in last days of behaviour of MLAs and MPs
O’Neill - completely disobeying rules around covid. Told the other day by a court she will be in contempt if she does accept pensions for victims ruling.
Murphy - refusing to condemn the torture and murder of young Paul Quinn by a group of ira men because he had fallen out with one of their sons.
Anderson - referring to the victims of her and the ira , members of the british dirty war etc
Hazard - refusing to condemn the murder of an innocent civilian causing the orphaning of an only child and constituent of his
I could go on and on.