Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…6869717374…146

Comments

  • #3502
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,863 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Yes Mark. Everything stinks.

    What kind of banal comment is that?

    Clearly you too have an issue with the truth. You cannot find me any proof or evidence of the claim put forward, but you are willing to believe something regardless.


  • #3503
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    jm08 wrote: »
    See post above with brief conclusions. You can look up the Ombudsman report if you are so inclined.

    Do you believe the police should not have operated informants? That seems to be what you are suggesting.


  • #3504
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    markodaly wrote: »
    What kind of banal comment is that?

    Clearly you too have an issue with the truth. You cannot find me any proof or evidence of the claim put forward, but you are willing to believe something regardless.

    I've an issue with you and your needlessly aggressive posting style. Banal it may be, but that's the sort of response you should get at every turn imo.

    Rather than poo-pooing everything that's put forth to you, perhaps you could tell us what you'd accept as evidence, because I'd wager that if Ronnie Flanagan himself told you that there were missteps or ignorance in dealing with warnings, that you'd probably disbelieve him too.

    And less of the tone. I don't know where you think you are, but the constant ad hominem attacks on posters are a bit ridiculous. This is the internet, your opinion (like everyone else's) isn't all that important in the grand scheme.


  • #3505
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,965 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Meh.

    A United Ireland is never gonna be attractive to those people. It never has been. It never will be. Were you expecting it to be different in 2020? That's why they're not worth the effort in trying to woo them.

    You know the threshold is 50%+1, right? They're not part of the conversation and they don't want to be part of the conversation. Their loss.

    This is what will be fascinating about a border poll. Our partitionists and these people on the same side. Comfortable or uncomfortable bedfellows?


  • #3506
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,301 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    markodaly wrote: »
    I scanned through it and there is nothing there that substantaies your claim,
    By all means quote me the relevant part which sates where the police deliberately didn't act on a warning.


    Just read the full report.


  • #3507
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,301 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    downcow wrote: »
    Do you believe the police should not have operated informants? That seems to be what you are suggesting.


    I don't where you got that idea that the police should not have operated informants. Since they had informants they should have listened to them and acted on the information they were given.


    This didn't happen in either Bermingham or Omagh.


  • #3508
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,863 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    jm08 wrote: »
    Just read the full report.

    Again, show me the proof of your claim. If it's in the report, quite the paragraph, please.

    Otherwise, stop lying and promoting Republican conspiracy theories.


  • #3509
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,863 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    I've an issue with you and your needlessly aggressive posting style. Banal it may be, but that's the sort of response you should get at every turn imo.

    All I did was ask for someone to prove their allegation. Simple really.
    They did not.
    You have not.
    No one has....

    Therefore, its a false allegation designed to muddy the waters.
    If you don't like lies being called, then perhaps stop backing lies and making up $hite.


  • #3510
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    jm08 wrote: »
    I don't where you got that idea that the police should not have operated informants. Since they had informants they should have listened to them and acted on the information they were given.


    This didn't happen in either Bermingham or Omagh.

    Running informants is a little more complex than you suggest.
    I think your informants would have fairly quickly be found with a plastic bag over their heads in south Armagh.


  • Advertisement
  • #3511
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    markodaly wrote: »
    All I did was ask for someone to prove their allegation. Simple really.
    They did not.
    You have not.
    No one has....

    Therefore, its a false allegation designed to muddy the waters.
    If you don't like lies being called, then perhaps stop backing lies and making up $hite.

    Spot on. And clear for us all to see


  • #3512
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    markodaly wrote: »
    All I did was ask for someone to prove their allegation. Simple really.
    They did not.
    You have not.
    No one has....

    Therefore, its a false allegation designed to muddy the waters.
    If you don't like lies being called, then perhaps stop backing lies and making up $hite.

    "All I did..."

    Yes Mark.

    Please tell us what sort of evidence would be acceptable to you? It'll save everyone the time and energy required to sate your needs.


  • #3513
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,301 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    markodaly wrote: »
    Again, show me the proof of your claim. If it's in the report, quite the paragraph, please.

    Otherwise, stop lying and promoting Republican conspiracy theories.


    Just read it yourself, rather than just scanning it and come back to me then with why you think the Police did all they could to prevent the Omagh bombing or that in the Bermingham bomb, the police were competent in how they dealt with the information they had and the procedures as to how to deal with them.


  • #3514
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,301 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    downcow wrote: »
    Running informants is a little more complex than you suggest.
    I think your informants would have fairly quickly be found with a plastic bag over their heads in south Armagh.


    According to you, the IRA was riddled with informers. How come they all didn't end up with plastic bags over their heads?

    They had good intelligence for the Omagh bombing and they just didn't pass it on.


  • #3515
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,301 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    markodaly wrote: »
    All I did was ask for someone to prove their allegation. Simple really.
    They did not.
    You have not.
    No one has....

    Therefore, its a false allegation designed to muddy the waters.
    If you don't like lies being called, then perhaps stop backing lies and making up $hite.
    Thats exactly what the British security forces / British Gov. did all the time - muddy the waters.


  • #3516
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,863 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    "All I did..."

    Yes Mark.

    Please tell us what sort of evidence would be acceptable to you? It'll save everyone the time and energy required to sate your needs.

    What sort of evidence? Well, any actual independently verifiable evidence really.
    Not some, 'Some man told me in the pub' antidote.


  • Advertisement
  • #3517
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,863 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    jm08 wrote: »
    Just read it yourself, rather than just scanning it and come back to me then with why you think the Police did all they could to prevent the Omagh bombing or that in the Bermingham bomb, the police were competent in how they dealt with the information they had and the procedures as to how to deal with them.

    Again, point me to the correct paragraph or quote or page number that will even remotely prove what you alleged.

    If you cannot, or will not, then it's likely the reason is, there is no proof in that document.

    Therefore, stop telling bare face lies.


  • #3518
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    markodaly wrote: »
    What sort of evidence? Well, any actual independently verifiable evidence really.
    Not some, 'Some man told me in the pub' antidote.

    I don't think there is an antidote for what you're spewing.

    So something from CAIN perhaps? Do you know what CAIN is?


  • #3519
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    markodaly wrote: »
    Again, point me to the correct paragraph or quote or page number that will even remotely prove what you alleged.

    If you cannot, or will not, then it's likely the reason is, there is no proof in that document.

    Therefore, stop telling bare face lies.

    How do you know they're lies of you can't even be bothered to read what's proffered?

    Big accusation there tbh.


  • #3520
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,863 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    I don't think there is an antidote for what you're spewing.

    So something from CAIN perhaps? Do you know what CAIN is?

    They have this report on their website.
    https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/police/ombudsman/po121201omagh1.pdf

    From the very first page.
    The persons responsible for the Omagh bombing are the terrorists who
    planned and executed the atrocity. Nothing contained in this report should
    detract from that clear and unequivocal fact


    Now, if you have something else to offer?


  • #3521
    saabsaab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Can't be too far off now.


  • Advertisement
  • #3522
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,301 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    markodaly wrote: »
    They have this report on their website.
    https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/police/ombudsman/po121201omagh1.pdf

    From the very first page.

    Now, if you have something else to offer?


    Thats beside the point of the report. They are just clarifying that.



    Now have you read up as to how the RUC messed up disasterously for the victims of the Omagh bombing?


  • #3523
    Pogue eile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,877 ✭✭✭Pogue eile


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    You are missing the point completely McGowan overcompensates for being English and tries to be more Irish and Republican. A classic case of a 2nd Generation 'Irish' self hating English person - who tries to be more Irish than the Irish = over compensation.
    In fact he said he would have joined the IRA only for music.

    For the record. In all honesty I don't view any of those lads you mentioned as really Irish. Yeah they maybe second generation Irish, but are/were plastic paddies when all is said and done. It comes back to my point of Irish people having way more in common with Britain than they like to admit. Yet people claim 'Brits out' to show how Irish they are. In other words being Irish = Brits out - to them.

    Shane was born in Kent while his Irish parents were on holidays, he was reared in Tipperary until the age of 6 and spent every summer of his childhood in said home, McGowan is as Irish as Guinness. Their is not a single drop of English blood in either the McGowan or Lynch families.


  • #3524
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    jm08 wrote: »
    According to you, the IRA was riddled with informers. How come they all didn't end up with plastic bags over their heads?

    They had good intelligence for the Omagh bombing and they just didn't pass it on.

    You are now answering your own question.
    The reason they did not all end up with plastic bags over their heads is because the police did not act on all their information, thus giving them away.
    The other reason of course is that there were very high level informers like Dennis Donaldson whose job it was to identify other informers - and of course he set up the non-informing members for assassination as informers


  • #3525
    dd973
    Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭dd973


    Why would there be an IRA of any form post reunification? We all know that elements involved in physical force Republicanism overlap with organised crime however I think this is an overlooked aspect when the issue is examined.


  • #3526
    Edgware
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,874 ✭✭✭Edgware


    jm08 wrote: »
    I don't where you got that idea that the police should not have operated informants. Since they had informants they should have listened to them and acted on the information they were given.


    This didn't happen in either Bermingham or Omagh.
    Oh yeah, Birmingham was all the polices fault. The Provo scum couldn't even find a working telephone to ring in the warning in time. O Connell and O Bradaigh then tried to wash their hands of it


  • #3527
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,655 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Mod: @Edgware - wind it in. The last few posts in this and other threads have been unnecessarily aggressive.


  • #3528
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    This thread was peppered with republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done nothing wrong at the storey funeral.
    Seems that O’Neill has finally done a u turn and accepted she and they were wrong, reckless and now ‘regret’ their behaviour.
    It’s the nearest you will ever get to an apology from the arrogant shinners (similar type of words to how they regret murdering people). A disgrace that it has take months to arrive

    I wonder will the posters on here, who were claiming shinner innocence on this, will join with her u turn?
    I think I know the answer to my own question.


  • #3529
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    downcow wrote: »
    This thread was peppered with republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done nothing wrong at the storey funeral.
    Seems that O’Neill has finally done a u turn and accepted she and they were wrong, reckless and now ‘regret’ their behaviour.
    It’s the nearest you will ever get to an apology from the arrogant shinners (similar type of words to how they regret murdering people). A disgrace that it has take months to arrive

    I wonder will the posters on here, who were claiming shinner innocence on this, will join with her u turn?
    I think I know the answer to my own question.

    Care to point out anyone saying SF and O'Neill did nothing wrong, Downcow? You really do have an odd relationship with the truth. The vast majority of posters all stated that SF were wrong. The closest to your suggestion was a few people saying it was no different to other politicians attending another funeral.

    Why do you always have to go with blatant misrepresentation and exaggeration instead of having reasonable conversation?


  • #3530
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,995 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    downcow wrote: »
    This thread was peppered with republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done nothing wrong at the storey funeral.
    Seems that O’Neill has finally done a u turn and accepted she and they were wrong, reckless and now ‘regret’ their behaviour.
    It’s the nearest you will ever get to an apology from the arrogant shinners (similar type of words to how they regret murdering people). A disgrace that it has take months to arrive

    I wonder will the posters on here, who were claiming shinner innocence on this, will join with her u turn?
    I think I know the answer to my own question.

    Any links to her apology, trying to find it.


  • #3531
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Care to point out anyone saying SF and O'Neill did nothing wrong, Downcow? You really do have an odd relationship with the truth. The vast majority of posters all stated that SF were wrong. The closest to your suggestion was a few people saying it was no different to other politicians attending another funeral.

    Why do you always have to go with blatant misrepresentation and exaggeration instead of having reasonable conversation?

    I can’t search very well while on the phone but I will certainly get you plenty of posts repeating and supporting O’Neills former position.
    You might then even apologise to me for your claim

    Do you think she , even at this late date, should have had the courage to offer a full apology?
    Do you believe she initially misrepresented her responsibility for what went on at the funeral?
    Do you believe the behaviour of the sf leadership at the funeral of a murderer was simply disgraceful?

    Fairly simple yes/no questions


  • Advertisement
  • #3532
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Any links to her apology, trying to find it.

    I wouldn’t call it an apology. It is a slippery admission of wrongdoing and regret. I think she made it to RTÉ.

    Edit - just found it https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1164300/


  • #3533
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    downcow wrote: »
    I can’t search very well while on the phone but I will certainly get you plenty of posts repeating and supporting O’Neills former position.
    You might then even apologise to me for your claim

    Do you think she , even at this late date, should have had the courage to offer a full apology?
    Do you believe she initially misrepresented her responsibility for what went on at the funeral?
    Do you believe the behaviour of the sf leadership at the funeral of a murderer was simply disgraceful?

    Fairly simple yes/no questions

    Stop trying to shift the goalposts, Downcow. I'm asking you for proof that the thread was full of, "Republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done (sic) nothing wrong at the storey funeral", which wasn't even Michelle O'Neill's position, let alone the position of the vast majority of Republicans on here.

    To your questions

    1) Not really. I think it has mostly blown over, and I'm not appeased much by political apologies in general. The PR-type half-apology is better than I expected, and certainly more than we'll ever see from Arlene on RHI or Paisley Jr on his questionable holiday funding. Apart from a small handful of exceptions, political apologies are generally insincere, pure PR exercises, I'd much rather they didn't do the things they're apologising for.

    2) Yes.

    3) Disgraceful, no. Regrettable, yes. I think it was a poor decision, the magnitude of which is being exploited for political gain. It was wrong, but I wouldn't use the term disgraceful to describe mourners at a funeral, no.


  • #3534
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,995 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    downcow wrote: »
    I wouldn’t call it an apology. It is a slippery admission of wrongdoing and regret. I think she made it to RTÉ.

    Edit - just found it https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1164300/

    To be fair their attitude to the Storey funeral and thinking they "did no wrong" didn't sit well with most of the public, unless you were a hardened SF'er.

    They often tried to claim they had 50 invited guests at the funeral and this was within guidelines, but they should have known that at the same time others were burying family members with reduced numbers, they were just playing with semantics.

    I respect politicians who can see when they did wrong and admit it, but their doggedness in claiming all was ok with that funeral didn't sit well.


  • #3535
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Stop trying to shift the goalposts, Downcow. I'm asking you for proof that the thread was full of, "Republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done (sic) nothing wrong at the storey funeral", which wasn't even Michelle O'Neill's position, let alone the position of the vast majority of Republicans on here.

    .

    Just first quick google demonstrates her original position
    ‘I stand over that my actions were within the regulations and the public health guidance’
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/michelle-o-neill-rejects-claim-she-breached-covid-19-rules-at-bobby-storey-funeral-1.4293455%3fmode=amp


  • #3536
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,629 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    Stop trying to shift the goalposts, Downcow. I'm asking you for proof that the thread was full of, "Republicans claiming sf and O’Neill done (sic) nothing wrong at the storey funeral", which wasn't even Michelle O'Neill's position, let alone the position of the vast majority of Republicans on here.

    To your questions

    1) Not really. I think it has mostly blown over, and I'm not appeased much by political apologies in general. The PR-type half-apology is better than I expected

    Michelle mustn’t agree with you. She would have taken leave of her senses is she broke a story about her regret at her own behaviour, if she thought it had ‘blown over’


  • #3537
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    He obviously got no traction with his Irish language nonsense so now we're onto something minor from the past that's long blown over. Maddening. Can you imagine what the St Andrew's negotiations were like?


  • #3538
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,965 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    He obviously got no traction with his Irish language nonsense so now we're onto something minor from the past that's long blown over. Maddening. Can you imagine what the St Andrew's negotiations were like?

    Can't back up his claim that the thread was 'peppered with republicans saying SF had done nothing wrong' either.


  • #3539
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Can't back up his claim that the thread was 'peppered with republicans saying SF had done nothing wrong' either.
    Of course not. Sure he's ignored every question put to him in the other thread. I have asked umpteen times about an accusation he made of me, even linking back to the original post where he made his claim and to no avail. Maybe he didn't see it?


  • #3540
    Hamsterchops
    Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    dd973 wrote: »
    Why would there be an IRA of any form post reunification? We all know that elements involved in physical force Republicanism overlap with organised crime however I think this is an overlooked aspect when the issue is examined.

    Sadly I suspect yes there would be, so as to make sure that any and all Unionist links with Britain were closed down permanently. The whole reason for the IRA in all its guises is to stamp out Britishness and all links with our neighbouring island, (specifically London & Westminster).

    The IRA would be happy with Unionists in a 32 county Republic, but only if they've severerd their ties with Britain permanently, otherwise the IRA (in some form) will go on for ever . . . . .

    That's my reading of it anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #3541
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Hamsterchops wrote: »
    Sadly I suspect yes there would be, so as to make sure that any and all Unionist links with Britain were closed down permanently. The whole reason for the IRA in all its guises is to stamp out Britishness and all links with our neighbouring island, (specifically London & Westminster).

    The IRA would be happy with Unionists in a 32 county Republic, but only if they've severerd their ties with Britain permanently, otherwise the IRA (in some form) will go on for ever . . . . .

    That's my reading of it anyway.

    What a bizarre take on things. I'm going to guess this is all, 'gut feeling' rather than anything even resembling evidenced?


  • #3542
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    downcow wrote: »
    Just first quick google demonstrates her original position
    ‘I stand over that my actions were within the regulations and the public health guidance’
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/michelle-o-neill-rejects-claim-she-breached-covid-19-rules-at-bobby-storey-funeral-1.4293455%3fmode=amp

    Within the same article,

    'Ms O’Neill did accept that what was happening in a photograph taken after the funeral and shared on social media – of herself and two men, one with his arm round her shoulder – “shouldn’t have happened”.'

    So even from Michelle O'Neill's perspective, your, 'did nothing wrong' assertion would be incorrect.

    Now, back to the core....some evidence that the thread was peppered with Republicans saying SF did nothing wrong. Not Republicans stating that it was exaggerated, not Republicans comparing it to other events, just some stating that they did NOTHING wrong. Since the thread was peppered with it, this evidence should be easily located.


  • #3543
    larva
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭larva


    Fionn1952 wrote: »
    What a bizarre take on things. I'm going to guess this is all, 'gut feeling' rather than anything even resembling evidenced?

    He has a point, a reunified Ireland isnt going to remove people who clearly identify themselves as British, its plausible that Unionist sectarianism will escalate if there is reunification, to what extent is anyones guess. The RA wont disappear either because its achieved a 32 county republic, if anything they will see this a victory thats finally made Catholics first class citizens and Protestants second class and they will no doubt try to build on this. The only way to get a proper equilibrium in the North is for it to become its own Country, free of both Dublin and London, this of course would require much more stable and proper political leadership which the North has never experienced in its past as both sides simply cannot move on from their historical mindsets.


  • #3544
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    larva wrote: »
    He has a point, a reunified Ireland isnt going to remove people who clearly identify themselves as British, its plausible that Unionist sectarianism will escalate if there is reunification, to what extent is anyones guess. The RA wont disappear either because its achieved a 32 county republic, if anything they will see this a victory thats finally made Catholics first class citizens and Protestants second class and they will no doubt try to build on this.

    Eh, the only people peddling this nonsense are partitionists and unionists and misinformed souls like yourself and Hamsterchops.

    Why you think this would come to pass I don't know.

    The only way to get a proper equilibrium in the North is for it to become its own Country, free of both Dublin and London, this of course would require much more stable and proper political leadership which the North has never experienced in its past as both sides simply cannot move on from their historical mindsets.

    What?

    You propose a plan that literally has zero support as a solution to the current status. A current status mind, that is governed by an agreement between Ireland and the UK?

    Jesus. How do you people come up with your "ideas" and think they're worthy of discussion?


  • #3545
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    larva wrote: »
    He has a point, a reunified Ireland isnt going to remove people who clearly identify themselves as British, its plausible that Unionist sectarianism will escalate if there is reunification, to what extent is anyones guess. The RA wont disappear either because its achieved a 32 county republic, if anything they will see this a victory thats finally made Catholics first class citizens and Protestants second class and they will no doubt try to build on this. The only way to get a proper equilibrium in the North is for it to become its own Country, free of both Dublin and London, this of course would require much more stable and proper political leadership which the North has never experienced in its past as both sides simply cannot move on from their historical mindsets.

    Why does it always come back to this suggestion.....that has absolutely no cross community support (it isn't a new idea, it peaked barely squeaking into double figures), and is primarily supported by those so hardline Loyalist they would make the DUP look half a step away from waving tricolours around.

    I have never seen a proposal for unification that involved setting up Unionists as second class citizens.

    Also stating NI cannot move on.....I'd suggest having a little look into what NI was like in 1975 versus now. There has been tremendous progress. Distrust remains in some communities, small groups remain outright hostile, but it's a different world altogether to that of the 70s. Progress takes time, in a post-conflict environment, it would be ludicrous to expect otherwise.


  • #3546
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    larva wrote: »
    He has a point, a reunified Ireland isnt going to remove people who clearly identify themselves as British, its plausible that Unionist sectarianism will escalate if there is reunification, to what extent is anyones guess. The RA wont disappear either because its achieved a 32 county republic, if anything they will see this a victory thats finally made Catholics first class citizens and Protestants second class and they will no doubt try to build on this. The only way to get a proper equilibrium in the North is for it to become its own Country, free of both Dublin and London, this of course would require much more stable and proper political leadership which the North has never experienced in its past as both sides simply cannot move on from their historical mindsets.

    This is nuts, all of it.

    Post-unification and para-militarism is finished. Republicans will have no British state to attack and the excuse of preserving British rule, Unionists used to murder innocent Catholics, evaporates too.

    Unification provides an opportunity to secularise the schools and build an 21st Century universal healthcare system.


  • Advertisement
  • #3547
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,863 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    jm08 wrote: »
    Thats beside the point of the report. They are just clarifying that.

    By clarifying you mean, proving your allegation as false? :D

    No evidence of said allegation means its not true sadly. That is how it works.


  • #3548
    larva
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭larva


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Eh, the only people peddling this nonsense are partitionists and unionists and misinformed souls like yourself and Hamsterchops.

    Why you think this would come to pass I don't know.

    What?

    You propose a plan that literally has zero support as a solution to the current status. A current status mind, that is governed by an agreement between Ireland and the UK?

    Jesus. How do you people come up with your "ideas" and think they're worthy of discussion?

    Not sure what a Hamsterchops is but you seem to get a kick out of name calling people so good luck with that. By default, hard line unionist, those willing to use force as a means to protect their unity with Britain will surely make their presence known if a united Ireland is ever really on the cards. Northern Ireland as a state on its own is the only middle ground that could appease both parties, even if there isnt much support for that idea.


  • #3549
    larva
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭larva


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    This is nuts, all of it.

    Post-unification and para-militarism is finished. Republicans will have no British state to attack and the excuse of preserving British rule, Unionists used to murder innocent Catholics, evaporates too.

    Unification provides an opportunity to secularise the schools and build an 21st Century universal healthcare system.

    Most Northern Irish people see our health service as crap and too expensive compared to the NHS, nuts aint it, oh and yes Unification will see use as smiley happy people.


  • #3550
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,301 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    larva wrote: »
    Not sure what a Hamsterchops is but you seem to get a kick out of name calling people so good luck with that. By default, hard line unionist, those willing to use force as a means to protect their unity with Britain will surely make their presence known if a united Ireland is ever really on the cards. Northern Ireland as a state on its own is the only middle ground that could appease both parties, even if there isnt much support for that idea.


    Hamsterchops is a poster (see some of his/her posts above).


  • #3551
    Spleodar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 72 ✭✭Spleodar


    There's one thing they forget in the analysis of the healthcare systems. If a united Ireland were to happen, I would assume the structures of the Northern Irish NHS would just continue as they are. It would be ludicrous and frankly probably impossible to implement the HSE model in the North as the two systems have completely different histories.

    The Republic of Ireland spends significantly more per capita on health than the Northern Irish NHS does. It just gets far worse bang for buck due to historical and structural issues.

    So, if anything, the Northern Irish system, kept as it is, would potentially end up with access to far better funding and the gap between the services from the two systems would probably drive heavy reform of the HSE systems anyway.

    If we could end up with something that was more like best of both, across a range of public services and approaches to public administration, we actually might end up with superior services and better economic performance in both jurisdictions across a range of areas.

    Northern Ireland might also perform better economically with the Republic's tailored to Ireland models of economic development. The focus of the UK government tends to be on London and the Southeast of England, with Northern Ireland being the periphery of the periphery. It certainly hasn't featured strongly in UK economic development plans, other than as an after thought. On the other side of it, the Republic could learn a lot from systems like the NHS.

    Also, it might realistically pave the way for a federal Ireland and possibly with more than just two states. I could see a lot of sense in having the four provinces as actual self-administrating regions and it would make a lot more sense if a new Ulster region stuck to the historical entities and rolled in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan.

    If you did move to a united Ireland, it's certainly not going to happen on the basis of centralising power in Dublin, particularly after a century of completely different administration in Northern Ireland, and a federal setup would be extremely good for Munster and Connacht too.

    We haven't really thought out this at all. It's not just going to be a case of Northern Ireland slotting in as an extra few counties and a huge downgrade in autonomy. That would be totally unacceptable to people who live there no matter what kind of political views they have and I think that's something we need to really look at if we ever intend to move towards a reunited Ireland.

    We are a totally overcentralised state (most centralised in the OECD) as it is and it could be a huge opportunity to restructure the way the state functions in a very positive way for the whole island, not just as a solution to a century of partition.

    I think many of us, on all sides of the argument, both north and south, have a very over simplistic view of what would actually be involved in building a shared future on the island as united Ireland. It can't really be just a case of throwing the 6 counties with the 26 without radical changes to a whole lot of structures of state.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement