downcow wrote: » The whole premise of the question is wrong. You are forgetting I live in the uk. I happen to live in the bit that is called Northern Ireland. Your question seems to be asking is a region of the uk viable. That is completely missing how the UK works. You may work like that in Roi and ponder over whether Mayo is viable but no the way I think in uk. I believe my country (UK) is fairly solid on your three points - not perfect - but certainly my choice ahead of joining a nation of just 10 million people
downcow wrote: » Still waiting fo you guys to answer my question What is bad about the ROI that could contribute to us thinking it might be failed?
onh81 wrote: » Your part of the UK is probably the most strongly contested territory in Western Europe, in case you haven’t noticed.
Five Eighth wrote: » Firstly, the thread which we have been contributing to reads ‘Northern Ireland – a failure 99 years on’. Secondly, what country are you referring to when you quote 10m people? Thirdly, no other part of the UK was partitioned and established through an artificially contrived majority.
downcow wrote: » Well unionists are not contesting it. Republicans have been contesting it for 99 years. Maybe the question is “attempts to unify the island- a failure 99 years on” ??
downcow wrote: » Could you define an artificially contrived majority before I answer you question.
Five Eighth wrote: » Ulster is a province on the island of Ireland. It is one of four, the others being Leinster, Connacht and Munster. All together there are 32 counties in Ireland. The democratic wish of the vast majority of people living in the 32 counties is for an Irish Republic free from outside interference in its affairs. Ulster has nine counties. In order for the Ulster unionists to create a majority within Ulster, they separated six counties from the nine Ulster counties and, of course, the remaining 26 counties. Hence, an artificially created majority.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Is this not what you learn in 'Partition junior grade'?
Five Eighth wrote: » I agree. I was asked the question. Strange.
downcow wrote: » You are missing the point of my question. You are quoting/misquoting something that happened 100 years ago. I wanted you to define what makes a country an ‘artificially created majority’ that needs undone. You are just giving us a history lesson that could be applied to nearly every country in the world. At what point do you accept that a country is now in existence long enough to be legitimate? We could then take a look and see how your model applies across the world. You guys need to let go of the past and work from where we are now. Northern Ireland has been british for several centuries and you guys partitioned yourselves from us 100 years ago and are now crying for us to join in your little nationalistic project because you think your economy may be better if we join you. You keep proposing marriage to us and we keep refusing. You are just a good friend. We don’t want to marry. Let’s stay good friends and have a bit of crack together. I am sorry if you are hurt by our rejection
FrancieBrady wrote: » A 'country' that requires the oversight of an International Agreement can not be called a success nor indeed legitimate if that is a permanent arrangement. Please don't come in here and tell us it has 'something to celebrate' if you cannot enumerate that.
downcow wrote: » Do you need me to put the questions in bold so as you don’t miss them?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Your question was answered by Five Eight...awaiting your backed up rebuttal. You STILL haven't addressed the OP's question and the questions of me and others. Please point out what can be 'celebrated' about the establishment of NI.
downcow wrote: » The op question was , is ni a failure? I think we need a few parameters. I could list endless reasons why 1.7 million of us are choosing to live in this country. But I guess many people in ROI could do the same. That doesn’t prove much. It might enlighten us more if you could tell me why so many southerners (or maybe not) are so besotted with our wee country and why they want to take our hand in marriage? What is it you fancy about us? I am chuffed that you want us but if you really loved �� you’d want what was best for us even it didn’t include marrying you. I know it’s hard. I once loved a girl and she just wanted to stay friends while I wanted to marry her. But hey, that’s life. You need to get on and make a life for yourselves. We’ll be ok. We’re already married and like any marriage it has got its challenges, but you know what, we certainly won’t be walking out, and thanks to you she signed this contract called the gfa which means she can’t walk out on us. You could keep looking for a lover or just be satisfied as a single country.
FrancieBrady wrote: » A ridiculous and cowardly answer.
downcow wrote: » That touched a nerve Francie. Maybe a bit too close to reality for you
FrancieBrady wrote: » It confirmed that you are here to deflect and avoid and have your little potshots. Are you going to address the answer you got to your question on 'artificial majorities' even? Unlikely, given your track record. We'll probably get a wee story about some friend or other and no back up or data.
downcow wrote: » I answered it clearly. You just didn’t like the answer. It was a newly created international boundary 100 years ago when ROI partitioned themselves from the UK. We (ni) remained in the UK and continued to elect MPs to the uk government. It has taken ROI 100 years to recover from partition and to begin to shake off the monolithic culture and outlook. Fair play for beginning that process but if you had not partitioned then ROI would not have suffered the past 100 years the way it has and Ireland (United) would be a thriving country within the UK family. But you made your bed so you can lie in it - don’t try and drag us into your project which would inevitably lead to a repeat of the last 100years and our great grandchildren would be on the touch.boards forum in 2120 saying ‘thank god we have rebuilt our country, I wish our great grandparents had not sent us off on their second nationalistic fantasy project’. At that point their may well be a united ireland at peace with itself, but I seriously doubt systems of government will be such that it matters. Who really wants the pain?
downcow wrote: » I answered it clearly. You just didn’t like the answer. It was a newly created international boundary 100 years ago when ROI partitioned themselves from the UK. We (ni) remained in the UK and continued to elect MPs to the uk government.
It has taken ROI 100 years to recover from partition and to begin to shake off the monolithic culture and outlook. Fair play for beginning that process but if you had not partitioned then ROI would not have suffered the past 100 years the way it has and Ireland (United) would be a thriving country within the UK family.
But you made your bed so you can lie in it - don’t try and drag us into your project which would inevitably lead to a repeat of the last 100years and our great grandchildren would be on the touch.boards forum in 2120 saying ‘thank god we have rebuilt our country, I wish our great grandparents had not sent us off on their second nationalistic fantasy project’. At that point their may well be a united ireland at peace with itself, but I seriously doubt systems of government will be such that it matters. Who really wants the pain?
downcow wrote: » The op question was , is ni a failure? I think we need a few parameters. I could list endless reasons why 1.7 million of us are choosing to live in this country. But I guess many people in ROI could do the same. That doesn’t prove much. It might enlighten us more if you could tell me why so many southerners (or maybe not so many as you say) are so besotted with our wee country and why they want to take our hand in marriage? What is it you fancy about us? I am chuffed that you want us but if you really loved �� you’d want what was best for us even it didn’t include marrying you. I know it’s hard. I once loved a girl and she just wanted to stay friends while I wanted to marry her. But hey, that’s life. You need to get on and make a life for yourselves. We’ll be ok. We’re already married and like any marriage it has got its challenges, but you know what, we certainly won’t be walking out, and thanks to you she signed this contract called the gfa which means she can’t walk out on us. You could keep looking for a lover or just be satisfied as a single country.
jm08 wrote: » Why are you so afraid of a border poll then if you think this?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Which is fine if you are taking potshots. But doesn't for a second address the creation of an 'artificial majority' for Unionists and the maintenance of that through the changing of the voting system and gerrymandering by Unionists, to the detriment of the rest of the minority population and the expectation of an equal and inclusive society. You can answer this without taking your simplistic potshots.
jm08 wrote: » Factually incorrect. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 ''established separate Home Rule institutions within two new subdivisions of Ireland: the six north-eastern counties were to form "Northern Ireland", while the larger part of the country was to form "Southern Ireland". Both areas of Ireland were to continue as a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for their future reunification under common Home Rule institutions.'' ''Southern Ireland'' didn't become a republic until 1949 by an Act of Parliament of the UK. So tell me, why do the Scots want out of this thriving UK? It seems loyalists do!
downcow wrote: » Yes, yes and yes again Buts it’s historic and part of the process of setting up many countries. Why are you struggling with my answer
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
