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

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.

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?

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.

[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)

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Ya....put them on the table (personally wouldnt be in favour/see benefit in any of them and it fall upon unionists to win people around to it)

But yeah,its long since time,a proper national discussion was had and what safegaurds unionists want in a utd ireland (personally im.in favour of another bank holiday for july 12th

and seriously examining prospect of moving capital to belfast)

FrancieBrady

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.

It won't be a barter situation, Unionists have already agreed that the process is after a vote. You won't be offered stuff to keep you 'peaceful' if that is what you are implying.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So you want to tear up the GFA is it?

Why would we leave the EU?

I am not saying I want any of the suggestions. I am simply pointing out that it would be rediculous for unionists to enter discussions on a hypothetical UI. Equally as rediculous as republicans entering a discussion on maintaining NIs position in the uk permanently.
It would be like asking turkeys to enter discussion on improving the range of stuffings available at Christmas

downcow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ya....put them on the table (personally wouldnt be in favour/see benefit in any of them and it fall upon unionists to win people around to it)

But yeah,its long since time,a proper national discussion was had and what safegaurds unionists want in a utd ireland (personally im.in favour of another bank holiday for july 12th and seriously examining prospect of moving capital to belfast)

That’s fair comment. And I’d be up for discussing what safeguards nationalists would want, to accept NI as a country they can fully and permanently commit to and feel ownership of. (personally im.in favour of bank holiday for March 17th

and seriously examining prospect of moving capital to Armagh)

Brendan Bendar

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

They have done nothing else.

munsterlegend

downcow wrote: »

I am not saying I want any of the suggestions. I am simply pointing out that it would be rediculous for unionists to enter discussions on a hypothetical UI. Equally as rediculous as republicans entering a discussion on maintaining NIs position in the uk permanently.
It would be like asking turkeys to enter discussion on improving the range of stuffings available at Christmas

There is a considerable difference though. There is virtually 0 support for the republic joining the U.K. two of the biggest 5 parties in the north are pro unification. Given the changing demographics it would be lunacy for unionism to bury their heads in the sand especially given how Westminster has effectively said you ain’t the same as us really by leaving it in the EU.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It won't be a barter situation, Unionists have already agreed that the process is after a vote. You won't be offered stuff to keep you 'peaceful' if that is what you are implying.

Why not, sure the GFA did the same for Republicans. Jobs for the boys for accepting partition , community workers, SPADs etc. 20 + years of virtually no progress and not a hint of dissent.

British SF now have a different policy on abortion to Irish SF. Seem to be getting rather comfortable with partition.

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

That’s fair comment. And I’d be up for discussing what safeguards nationalists would want, to accept NI as a country they can fully and permanently commit to and feel ownership of. (personally im.in favour of bank holiday for March 17th and seriously examining prospect of moving capital to Armagh)

The thing is,they've tried NI as a country (hasnt and wont work)and unionists will piss over any concessions to nationlists anyway.....

Its there 100 years and unionists still think so little of nationlists,they wont give a irish language act and their elected representives,just sneer at it....time to pull the plug

downcow

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is,they've tried NI as a country (hasnt and wont work)and unionists will piss over any concessions to nationlists anyway.....

Its there 100 years and unionists still think so little of nationlists,they wont give a irish language act and their elected representives,just sneer at it....time to pull the plug

Well of course you are talking nonsense. Both sides have shown little respect to each other, or to each other's culture, identity and sense of belonging. There is no one side to blame for all of this.

But thankfully it has all been decided, and unless you want to start renegotiating GFA it is very clear. You can jump up and down all you wish, but until there is a majority of people in both jurisdictions who want to try a truly united Island for the first time in history, then it cant happen. And I know it must be very depressing for you that we have had endless predictions over the decades that there would very soon be majority wanting to try this United Island project and yet it seems to keep moving further away from you. The bold Gerry predicted it would be done and dusted by 2016

I have not read the GFA for a very long time, but some of you are expert in it. Could you tell me if this hypothetical situation arose, is it a case that the Republic of Ireland simply absorbs Northern Ireland or do the two countries have to talk about how they unite and what that looks like? Just curious