nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

"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.

It won't matter what SF say come the time, unless they are the government, as it will be the government not a single party that will be making the case for it.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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)

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.

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?

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.

[Deleted User]

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

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

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.

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?

branie2

40th anniversary of the hunger strike is next year

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.

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.

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: »

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.