How long before Irish reunification?

BonnieSituation · 29-05-2020 4:53am

20-30 years

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You do realise that for nearly 100 years the unionists have had what they wanted.

At no point has unionism made the North welcoming to the other half of the population who don't want to be part of the UK.

Unionism had its chance. And still, with a UI staring them down, they continue to make the north a cold place for their fellow Ulstermen.

It's up to unionists to sell NI and the UK as a positive thing for Nationalists. Not just when a border poll is in the offing, but now.

When a border poll arrives they will still have a chance to sell the status quo to Nationalists.

They won't take it. It's not in their make up.

This is the post dripping with "hate".

Have you redefined "hate" now?

downcow · 29-05-2020 7:16am

downcow wrote: »

97% of attacks by IRA in my predominantly nationalist town were directed at unionists. The 3% at nationalists were just bits of housekeeping. Fairly emphatic evidence

replicated in town after town.
....and I would never deny or condone the equally horrible attacks by the UFF and the likes against catholics and the driving them out of areas for no reason other than their religion and the perceived threat

Eagle eye. There are a few posters on here hate to be reminded of the sectarianism of their beloved ira hero’s.
There method of defence is an onslaught of half truths and lies directed at a single posters to make it sound right because they say it often enough. You got a touch there in the last few pages.

I actually disagree with a few things you said but the basis of what you were saying is accurate. The problem is if you tarnish the good romantic opinions of the ira you will get attacked here.
Feel free to say all you like about loyalist scumbags, drug dealing, racketeering, murder etc and you get a nice wee pat on the back. But don’t be mentioning the PROVOs record.
Their child abuse, fuel laundering, torture, collusion, british agents, rape, holiday homes, sectarianism, burglaries. Their preparedness to hunger strike for more comfy conditions in prison but not for the injustices in the outside world. Their connections and support of FARC, PLO, Gadaffi, Iran.
Etc, etc, etc.

Note these posters have never told us why this honourable non-sectarian organisation continually targeted Protestants. eg why Gerrys west Belfast men took all the risks associated with transporting firebombs across the entire city out of Catholic area into exclusively Protestant areas to burn 12 civilians to death and maim many others. You won’t get a reason from these posters as to why the didn’t burn people to death in one of the much handier catholic hotels.
They also won’t address my post above.

So if you want to get an easier life just accept that the IRA were lovely people who brought justice and harmony to this place. They never abused power through rape, child abuse, extortion and murder. They didn’t single out my community because of our religion and aspirations. They didn’t torture people for 3 days before killing them.
A real nice bunch to be proud of.

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 7:29am

downcow wrote: »

Eagle eye. There are a few posters on here hate to be reminded of the sectarianism of their beloved ira hero’s.
There method of defence is an onslaught of half truths and lies directed at a single posters to make it sound right because they say it often enough. You got a touch there in the last few pages.

I actually disagree with a few things you said but the basis of what you were saying is accurate. The problem is if you tarnish the good romantic opinions of the ira you will get attacked here.
Feel free to say all you like about loyalist scumbags, drug dealing, racketeering, murder etc and you get a nice wee pat on the back. But don’t be mentioning the PROVOs record.
Their child abuse, fuel laundering, torture, collusion, british agents, rape, holiday homes, sectarianism, burglaries. Their preparedness to hunger strike for more comfy conditions in prison but not for the injustices in the outside world. Their connections and support of FARC, PLO, Gadaffi, Iran.
Etc, etc, etc.

Note these posters have never told us why this honourable non-sectarian organisation continually targeted Protestants. eg why Gerrys west Belfast men took all the risks associated with transporting firebombs across the entire city out of Catholic area into exclusively Protestant areas to burn 12 civilians to death and maim many others. You won’t get a reason from these posters as to why the didn’t burn people to death in one of the much handier catholic hotels.
They also won’t address my post above.

So if you want to get an easier life just accept that the IRA were lovely people who brought justice and harmony to this place. They never abused power through rape, child abuse, extortion and murder. They didn’t single out my community because of our religion and aspirations. They didn’t torture people for 3 days before killing them.
A real nice bunch to be proud of.

Everything you moan about not being answered in that ^ post dripping with your familiar victimhood has been addressed ad nauseum here.

Fionn1952 · 29-05-2020 9:44am

15-20 years

eagle eye wrote: »

You picked up an implication from a question. Well done you, I don't have a rolly eyes on the app.

Yes, your leading statements implied an expected answer for your final question.

I see you've selectively edited out MY question in your reply though, so I'll ask again, can you quote me the part of the GFA that is compromised or broken by the existence of illegal organisations?

(You'll note how my question carries an implication there, something you seem to thing is impossible. Rolly eyes indeed).

Hamsterchops · 29-05-2020 10:30am

So the conflict/war Troubles continue to rage, or at least they do here on boards.ie, with no chance of agreement, and no sign of any Unity (as per a United Ireland), just two tribes bashing the hell out of each other.

No Unification in sight.

Fionn1952 · 29-05-2020 10:39am

15-20 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So the conflict/war Troubles continue to rage, or at least they do here on boards.ie, with no chance of agreement, and no sign of any Unity (as per a United Ireland), just two tribes bashing the hell out of each other.

No Unification in sight.

Or, as in reality, a small number on either side continue to disagree.....while the vast majority ignore it and get on with their lives.

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 11:26am

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So the conflict/war Troubles continue to rage, or at least they do here on boards.ie, with no chance of agreement, and no sign of any Unity (as per a United Ireland), just two tribes bashing the hell out of each other.

No Unification in sight.

Nonsense. There are a few belligerent Unionists playing the victimhood game. They'll do the usual Never Never Never and embarrass nobody but their own. The decent Unionists knew a UI was coming when the GFA happened and dealt with it then, they will accept it if it happens, as they said they would by voting for the GFA and get on with it.

Yeah_Right · 29-05-2020 11:45am

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So the conflict/war Troubles continue to rage, or at least they do here on boards.ie, with no chance of agreement, and no sign of any Unity (as per a United Ireland), just two tribes bashing the hell out of each other.

No Unification in sight.

After doing a bit of research, I was surprised to see there has actually been quite a bit of violent activity by both sides since the GFA. The majority by the republican side though. I guesstimate a ratio 2:1. The IRA seem to prefer bombs while the loyalists like guns. Also most of the loyalist killings look like internal feuds. The loyalists appear to be gangsters while the IRA just seem to like blowing stuff up.

Having looked into at the amount of paramilitary activity since the GFA, I think there will definitely be violence from both sides when they finally decide to have referendum on unification.

eagle eye · 29-05-2020 11:45am

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

Fionn1952 wrote:

I see you've selectively edited out MY question in your reply though, so I'll ask again, can you quote me the part of the GFA that is compromised or broken by the existence of illegal organisations?

I again asked a question but you decide it's a statement. I'm asking if the peace doesn't hold in the north does that put an end to the GFA?

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 11:59am

eagle eye wrote: »

I again asked a question but you decide it's a statement. I'm asking if the peace doesn't hold in the north does that put an end to the GFA?

If it involves any of the groups that signed up to it...yes.

jm08 · 29-05-2020 12:03pm

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

Their preparedness to hunger strike for more comfy conditions in prison but not for the injustices in the outside world.

Well, thats a lie anyway. I suggest you read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanket_protest

eagle eye · 29-05-2020 12:05pm

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

Another question. When does it get to the stage that a new agreement is required? As in how many members of the electorate who were too young/not alive to vote on it does there have to be in order for it to be out of date?

jm08 · 29-05-2020 12:09pm

20-30 years

Yeah_Right wrote: »

After doing a bit of research, I was surprised to see there has actually been quite a bit of violent activity by both sides since the GFA. The majority by the republican side though. I guesstimate a ratio 2:1. The IRA seem to prefer bombs while the loyalists like guns. Also most of the loyalist killings look like internal feuds. The loyalists appear to be gangsters while the IRA just seem to like blowing stuff up.

Yes, dissident republicans who were unhappy with the GFA. They split from the Provos and absolutely hate Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein has to be very careful that they keep as many as possible on the peaceful means side.

Having looked into at the amount of paramilitary activity since the GFA, I think there will definitely be violence from both sides when they finally decide to have referendum on unification.

Why would republicans object to a referendum on a UI? That is their dream.

jm08 · 29-05-2020 12:13pm

20-30 years

eagle eye wrote: »

Another question. When does it get to the stage that a new agreement is required? As in how many members of the electorate who were too young/not alive to vote on it does there have to be in order for it to be out of date?

The GFA is a Treaty between the UK and Ireland. Either Government would have to withdraw from the Treaty. If the Assembly falls, I think what happens is that the British and Irish Government have joint control over NI. Thats a big incentive for unionism to make the GFA work.

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 12:20pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Another question. When does it get to the stage that a new agreement is required? As in how many members of the electorate who were too young/not alive to vote on it does there have to be in order for it to be out of date?

The same amount that it takes to reverse ant international treaty

eagle eye · 29-05-2020 12:34pm

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

The same amount that it takes to reverse ant international treaty

What amount is that?

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 12:46pm

eagle eye wrote: »

What amount is that?

The process: The willingness of two governments to rescind the current agreement. The political will to formulate a new agreement. Convincing the multi-party's to sign up to a new agreement whatever differences it would contain, two referendums requiring a majority vote in each.

Fionn1952 · 29-05-2020 12:53pm

15-20 years

eagle eye wrote: »

I again asked a question but you decide it's a statement. I'm asking if the peace doesn't hold in the north does that put an end to the GFA?

I didn't decide it was a statement, I asked you a question to further clarify your question.

If there is no part of the GFA which is invalidated by the existence of an illegal organisation, then why would it put an end to the GFA? To me, throwing away the treaty which has given us a considerably more peaceful place for the vast majority doesn't seem like a reasonable solution to some extreme lunatics on either side. I'd suggest that following the existing legal pathways for dealing with criminal behaviour and membership of illegal organisations would be a bit less, 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'.

The GFA can of course be amended or changed any time there is a significant enough political push for that in the UK or Ireland, and that political push results in a majority voting for that change. As support for the withdrawal from the GFA is so low it barely has a political voice, outside of fringe types such as Jamie Bryson, I suspect it is here to stay for the foreseeable future, or until a vote on unification passes, at which point it will no longer be relevant.

If those events should come to pass, I would be fully in support of, and would vote in favour of legislative protection for the Unionist/British identity to replace the GFA.

downcow · 29-05-2020 1:55pm

jm08 wrote: »

Well, thats a lie anyway. I suggest you read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanket_protest

Well, direct from your link. Here are the five demands. This is what 10 people died for. Not for a free Ireland.

The right not to wear a prison uniform;
The right not to do prison work;
The right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
The right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
Full restoration of remission lost through the protest.

I may have given them one of their demands i.e. The right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week.
The other demands they definitely should not have got given the crimes they were guilty of.

If I was a Republican I would be very embarrassed about that set of selfish demands. Of course that is probably why you never hear mentioned of the demands and rather than romanticisation that it had something to do with freeing Ireland or discrimination

29-05-2020 2:07pm

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

Well, direct from your link. Here are the five demands. This is what 10 people died for. Not for a free Ireland.

The right not to wear a prison uniform;
The right not to do prison work;
The right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
The right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
Full restoration of remission lost through the protest.

I may have given them one of their demands i.e. The right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week.
The other demands they definitely should not have got given the crimes they were guilty of.

If I was a Republican I would be very embarrassed about that set of selfish demands. Of course that is probably why you never hear mentioned of the demands and rather than romanticisation that it had something to do with freeing Ireland or discrimination

They seem very modest political.compromises to me

Its a fairly damning indictment of british policy here, They left people die over refusal to compromise,and likely caused 500 plus deaths due to the extra imputus it gave the troubles,

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 2:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They seem very modest political.compromises to me

Its a fairly damning indictment of british policy here, They left people die over refusal to compromise,and likely caused 500 plus deaths due to the extra imputus it gave the troubles,

The Hunger Strikers knew exactly why they were dying...their demands of the British Government internationalised the conflict/war and made the world take notice. When men or women are prepared to sarcrifice themselves for a cause, the world takes notice. They all knew this and imo succeeded.

RobMc59 · 29-05-2020 2:40pm

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Hunger Strikers knew exactly why they were dying...their demands of the British Government internationalised the conflict/war and made the world take notice. When men or women are prepared to sarcrifice themselves for a cause, the world takes notice. They all knew this and imo succeeded.

I disagree and believe although an unpleasant character Margaret Thatcher's persona as the uncomprimising 'iron lady 'was strengthened on the world stage by this episode.

munsterlegend · 29-05-2020 2:44pm

Just reading that in the 1983 Westminster election. Unionists won 15 of 17 seats and now have 8 out of 18. That is some change in the last 40 years and showed the previous disengagement of nationalists in politics.

eagle eye · 29-05-2020 2:48pm

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

The Hunger Strikers knew exactly why they were dying...their demands of the British Government internationalised the conflict/war and made the world take notice. When men or women are prepared to sarcrifice themselves for a cause, the world takes notice. They all knew this and imo succeeded.

You are unbelievable. That's an outlandish claim. If they wanted to do that they could have claimed they were on hunger strike due to the problems in NI but they didn't.
A pack of not very smart prisoners were used by those outside to make it about more than it actually was. It was spun into something it never was.
Just a pack of prisoners fighting for prison rights.

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 2:49pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I disagree and believe although an unpleasant character Margaret Thatcher's persona as the uncomprimising 'iron lady 'was strengthened on the world stage by this episode.

Maggie that caved in and signed the Anglo Irish Agreement after because of the surge in support for SF that the Hunger Strikers brought?

You need to study your history without jaundiced eyes Rob.

munsterlegend · 29-05-2020 2:59pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maggie that caved in and signed the Anglo Irish Agreement after because of the surge in support for SF that the Hunger Strikers brought?

You need to study your history without jaundiced eyes Rob.

Thatcher let her personal resentments get in the way of progress up north. Like any Tory basically said one thing to unionist and did another.

RobMc59 · 29-05-2020 3:01pm

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maggie that caved in and signed the Anglo Irish Agreement after because of the surge in support for SF that the Hunger Strikers brought?

You need to study your history without jaundiced eyes Rob.

Again I disagree.the UK had been trying to get an agreement over the line for a number of years but terrorist atrocities and the untrustworthy haughey delayed progress.

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 3:02pm

munsterlegend wrote: »

Thatcher let her personal resentments get in the way of progress up north. Like any Tory basically said one thing to unionist and did another.

Like Boris she sold them down the river but back they go, like obedient lapdogs, again and again.

Maybe this time they will learn, but I doubt it.

FrancieBrady · 29-05-2020 3:06pm

eagle eye wrote: »

You are unbelievable. That's an outlandish claim. If they wanted to do that they could have claimed they were on hunger strike due to the problems in NI but they didn't.
A pack of not very smart prisoners were used by those outside to make it about more than it actually was. It was spun into something it never was.
Just a pack of prisoners fighting for prison rights.

If you are uneducated to the extent that the Hunger Strikes impacted the world in a massive way and turned the spotlight on the British Governments behaviour here, then you are deluded and you don't want to face realities of history.

BonnieSituation · 29-05-2020 3:07pm

20-30 years

eagle eye wrote: »

Another question. When does it get to the stage that a new agreement is required? As in how many members of the electorate who were too young/not alive to vote on it does there have to be in order for it to be out of date?

When people agitate for one? The same way everything happens.

You could start a pro-Partition anti-GFA group if you want.
The same way you can have your own anti-UI group if you want.

How long before Irish reunification?

Comments