How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

jh79 wrote: »

Surely that is a major flaw in the agreement? So no matter what the majority of NI want the SoS is under no obligation to facilitate it. Basically the fate of NI is still in the British establishments hands.

Have you been aware of opinion polls?

You can slant them anyway you want depending on your view...downcow will have one view of them and trumpet the ones that conform to his view and others will trumpet the ones they view as relevant.

It would be an evidential mess if the calling of a poll was to be based on that. And there would be a litany of legal challenges, have no doubt.

Yes the fate of NI is in Britain's hands, but built into the agreement is trust. A border poll is the natural outcome of the process.

Trust in the British establishment was hard given, so we will see what happens. There is a growing call for a border poll as NI's status changes in a European and demographic context.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I say it was a 'win'?

It was Unionists who challenged the clause, it was the courts who decided that no, Unionists nor nobody else has a veto over the decision of the SoS, he/she can make the decision based on their opinion or political judgement alone and does not have to evidence it.
Edit: He/she can also decide not to call a poll too.

Surely that is a major flaw in the agreement? So no matter what the majority of NI want the SoS is under no obligation to facilitate it. Basically the fate of NI is still in the British establishments hands.

jh79 wrote: »

But i'm talking about the British only. They saved face by retaining sovereignty and reduced the cost of running it by getting the IRA to surrender.

Could you answer the 2nd part of my post? Why is a win for Republicans that the SoS doesn't need to explain or rationalise any decision on a border poll?

Where did I say it was a 'win'?

It was Unionists who challenged the clause, it was the courts who decided that no, Unionists nor nobody else has a veto over the decision of the SoS, he/she can make the decision based on their opinion or political judgement alone and does not have to evidence it.
Edit: He/she can also decide not to call a poll too.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand the question here. What do you mean?

Could you answer my question on the SoS first and i'll explain?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You need to research this yourself.

The British SAID it in a formal declaration and it was taken as the tacit withdrawal it was.

Maybe look at Unionist anger very closely and you will realise how pivotal it was to the Agreement.

Personally I think it was the point where Ian Paisley seismically gave up trying to defend the bigoted sectarian state and admitted to past transgressions. He knew the import of it, the British were not at their backs anymore, it was power-share or be defeated entirely.

But i'm talking about the British only. They saved face by retaining sovereignty and reduced the cost of running it by getting the IRA to surrender.

Could you answer the 2nd part of my post? Why is a win for Republicans that the SoS doesn't need to explain or rationalise any decision on a border poll?

jh79 wrote: »

When you were claiming that SF/IRA did not recognise the legitimacy of British sovereignty by agreeing to the GFA you pointed that SF didn't actually sign it.

So have the IRA and SF embraced all aspects of the GFA including the above and reached an agreement or did they surrender?

Sorry, I don't understand the question here. What do you mean?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any international agreement (it is not called and international treaty for a reason...it's an 'agreement') requires quid pro quo, not 'surrender'. The GFA or Belfast Agreement is full of quid pro quo. All sides that signed up to it recognised and addressed wrong doing and pledged to transparently own up to what they did in a truth process, that is STILL being blocked by British and Unionist interest BTW.

When you were claiming that SF/IRA did not recognise the legitimacy of British sovereignty by agreeing to the GFA you pointed that SF didn't actually sign it.

So have the IRA and SF embraced all aspects of the GFA including the above and reached an agreement or did they surrender?

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, what strategic or economic interest did they lose? NI is an economic black hole. How was this a win for the IRA. It is costing them less to pay SF to look after it for them than cleaning up after bombs in London and the like and they still own it!

Also how is the SoS deciding when a poll is called a win for Republicans? So in reality there is no self determination for the people of NI unless the British allow it! You haven't thought this through.

You need to research this yourself.

The British SAID it in a formal declaration and it was taken as the tacit withdrawal it was.

Maybe look at Unionist anger very closely and you will realise how pivotal it was to the Agreement.

Personally I think it was the point where Ian Paisley seismically gave up trying to defend the bigoted sectarian state and admitted to past transgressions. He knew the import of it, the British were not at their backs anymore, it was power-share or be defeated entirely.

downcow wrote: »

I wonder when the IRA men in dark 70s were they saying "right guys, our objectives are to get the British government to state that they have no strategic interest in Northern Ireland - then we can get into Stormont and administer British rule on their behalf"

No they certainly were not stating that was their objective.
EVERYONE's position changed and evolved...again look at the evidence and facts...the British and Unionist positions changed just as radically too. Excepting the DUP, they are still to accept the GFA.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well you have ignored the evidence presented that the British acceded to a demand emanating from the Hume-Adams talks to tacitly withdraw from Ireland saying they 'have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland' anymore.
This likely came from Adams as Hume had never mentioned the need for Britain to say it before their initiative.

You have also ignored evidence presented that built into the agreement (GFA) is a mechanism for the SoS to call a border poll whenever he/she wishes to.
Unionists spotted that this was a danger to them as they could not 'veto' it by requiring the SoS to present evidence. Hence the court challenge which they lost.

So yeh, I do think the the above was 'planned' and more to the point 'achieved' by republican/nationalist negotiators.

Francie, what strategic or economic interest did they lose? NI is an economic black hole. How was this a win for the IRA. It is costing them less to pay SF to look after it for them than cleaning up after bombs in London and the like and they still own it!

Also how is the SoS deciding when a poll is called a win for Republicans? So in reality there is no self determination for the people of NI unless the British allow it! You haven't thought this through.

downcow wrote: »

so thousands of people were killed to get the British government to state what we already knew anyway

Yes, I have always maintained this, there was absolutely no need for people to die...had the British delivered what they did in the GFA in 68 or 69 nobody would have died. There is NOTHING in the GFA that could not have been delivered had they not decided to shore up what Unionists knew (see Ian Paisley) was a sectarian bigoted state. Harold Wilson and Heath after him knew it was a sectarian bigoted state too...yet they refused to fix it.

I don't think the people gunned down on the streets of Derry or Ballymurphy and elsewhere were aware that the British had 'no selfish, strategic or economic interest, does anybody else think they did?

Nor the thousands displaced and burned out of their homes or batoned charged and bludgeoned off the streets by British forces when they looked for basic human rights...does anybody?

Nor the people of Monaghan or Dublin or Belturbet for that matter when the British allegedly colluded with Loyalists to bomb them. Does anybody?

Any international agreement (it is not called and international treaty for a reason...it's an 'agreement') requires quid pro quo, not 'surrender'. The GFA or Belfast Agreement is full of quid pro quo. All sides that signed up to it recognised and addressed wrong doing and pledged to transparently own up to what they did in a truth process, that is STILL being blocked by British and Unionist interest BTW.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well you have ignored the evidence presented that the British acceded to a demand emanating from the Hume-Adams talks to tacitly withdraw from Ireland saying they 'have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland' anymore.
This likely came from Adams as Hume had never mentioned the need for Britain to say it before their initiative.

You have also ignored evidence presented that built into the agreement (GFA) is a mechanism for the SoS to call a border poll whenever he/she wishes to.
Unionists spotted that this was a danger to them as they could not 'veto' it by requiring the SoS to present evidence. Hence the court challenge which they lost.

So yeh, I do think the the above was 'planned' and more to the point 'achieved' by republican/nationalist negotiators.

I wonder when the IRA men in dark 70s were they saying "right guys, our objectives are to get the British government to state that they have no strategic interest in Northern Ireland - then we can get into Stormont and administer British rule on their behalf"

Deleted User wrote: »

98% is the corrolation

You have said some ridiculous things but this one really takes the biscuit

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh....its a 98% corrolation on both religious sides as regards unionist/nationlist

Its notable youve stopped any/all.attempts at factual content within yous posts

Blaaz I have done everything you requested to secure your 'magic beans'that were going to demonstrate to me that Linfield selected this jersey based on UVF colours
do you want to maybe all not to talking nonsense?

downcow wrote: »

Why not just answer the question? Oh I forgot, it's Francie!

downcow, why don't you stop with the macabre attempts to bait people. I am not going to go down those rabbit holes with you, no matter how demeaning and mocking you get.

I have backed up what I have maintained with links and evidence. I expect other posters to counter that with facts and links.
I am not getting into your mudslinging and triumphalism.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This 'strategic interest' thing? Funny you are following downcow's lead here.

The British were here, killing our people on the streets to shore up a sectarian bigoted state that Ian Paisley eventually admitted existed.

How do I know or care what their strategic interest was? Were they just here for target practice, the scenery, the fresh air?

What is wrong with you? Are you totally unaware of how they fortified the state they allowed to be built?

The British (Peter Brooke said it, in yet another milestone the Unionists rejected and railed against:)

'“no selfish, strategic or economic interest in remaining in Northern Ireland.”

Ask him what he meant, he said it at the behest of Hume-Adams when the historic initiative bore fruit.

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/peace/talks.htm

so thousands of people were killed to get the British government to state what we already knew anyway

Bambi wrote: »

The British Army concluded that they could not defeat the IRA

The IRA concluded that they were not capable of creating a United Ireland

They were both right.

the British Army member who said that was clearly wrong. They were basically defeated and 9/11 would have completely finished them. Of course he was not to know that

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The reason why the truth should be defended even if you get accused of glorifying the IRA is all within the post above.

Triumphalism and lies and the kind of sad mockery of suffering and death unique to the belligerent Unionist.

The same poster who will turn the Covid crisis into a sick competition of us versus themuns.

Francie I am challenging the nonsense that they died for Ireland. Why don't you remind us of the fine things they died for - I'll get you started if my memory serves me right 1) more visits

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The reason why the truth should be defended even if you get accused of glorifying the IRA is all within the post above.

Triumphalism and lies and the kind of sad mockery of suffering and death unique to the belligerent Unionist.

The same poster who will turn the Covid crisis into a sick competition of us versus themuns.

Why not just answer the question? Oh I forgot, it's Francie!

Deleted User wrote: »

The conditions set out under the gfa

No....its not generally accepted the majority wish to remain.....its on a knife edge democratically and a bad winter/covid run riot in older generations would tip it 100% into reunification

Only the most extreme head-in-sand of unionist leadership,who demand any talk of this be shut down in unionism denies this........time and demographics have simply run out on unionism,its over

Link please showing us how close it is?

Deleted User wrote: »

Still no sign of this declartion of surrender it seems,keep saying it over and over,not gonna make it true

I am not actually sure who did or did not sign it, but they certainly supported it. It's called the Belfast Agreement. The whole basis of which is self-determination for the people of Northern Ireland - precisely what the IRA fought against

jh79 wrote: »

Jaysus no. Just find it interesting the skewed interpretation of reality on this thread.

The IRA planned it this way all along it seems!

Well you have ignored the evidence presented that the British acceded to a demand emanating from the Hume-Adams talks to tacitly withdraw from Ireland saying they 'have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland' anymore.
This likely came from Adams as Hume had never mentioned the need for Britain to say it before their initiative.

You have also ignored evidence presented that built into the agreement (GFA) is a mechanism for the SoS to call a border poll whenever he/she wishes to.
Unionists spotted that this was a danger to them as they could not 'veto' it by requiring the SoS to present evidence. Hence the court challenge which they lost.

So yeh, I do think the the above was 'planned' and more to the point 'achieved' by republican/nationalist negotiators.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From.the man who handwaves away a catholic majority as irrelevant to discussion on a border poll.....only one person with a skewed interpetation here

So all catholics will vote for a UI? Has the pope advised them to do so!

Yeah_Right

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And that day,as per thread title is here.....imo its near impossible to condemn saoradh as the requirements to hold a border poll have been met,but the brits wont hold one.......why should irish people persue peaceful means for unity,when the brits won't.

Saoradh. Those are the muppets that murdered Lyra McKee and then strutted down O'Connell St to show how proud they were of it?!? Its actually pretty easy to condemn those dickheads.

Then you take a look at their other aims. A socialist republic? **** off. They would basically turn Ireland into a 3rd world ****hole. No thanks. I will happily condemn them. And laugh at them.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except im not.....im basing it on demographics(along with several polls)

Which for reasons,only known to yous,you wish to ignore reality

,time has simply run out for their grubby lil colony on our island.......all this discussion is easily put to bed,hold the poll

Are you gonna share these polls? What's the correlation between catholism and the being prounification?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You campaigning now JH?

Jaysus no. Just find it interesting the skewed interpretation of reality on this thread.

The IRA planned it this way all along it seems!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Meh....its a 98% corrolation on both religious sides as regards unionist/nationlist

Its notable youve stopped any/all.attempts at factual content within yous posts

You're basing the need for a referendum on a number you plucked out of thin air.

jh79 wrote: »

Plenty of catholic public servants who wouldn't fancy redundancy in a UI.

No doubt a few "Republican" families hoping to pass the MLA baton through the generations like landed gentry that wouldn't fancy it either.

You campaigning now JH?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To my eyes there is....the fact you want to handwave away clear demographics is both disturbing and fasinating,

Ive siad lucidtalk polls show it....its clear from your reply to.francy yous dont read links

Plenty of catholic public servants who wouldn't fancy redundancy in a UI.

No doubt a few "Republican" families hoping to pass the MLA baton through the generations like landed gentry that wouldn't fancy it either.