downcow wrote: » I have just fecking told you several times. What is it you want me to say that will help you get a nice nights sleep?
downcow wrote: » Well why don’t you tell us what the great gains for republicanism were and how the gfa met their objectives and allowed them to cease their 30 year murder campaign. I have told you how it copperfastened the union and got Gerry and the boys sitting in Stormont administrating British rule and supporting the security forces
downcow wrote: » Why, were they at war with each other?
FrancieBrady wrote: » There are 'taigs about the place' and they are your equals and they aren't going away.
maccored wrote: » what? they were exploring options for peace. Where was Unionism in those discussions? this by the way, is your response after pretending republicans werent pursuing peace. You must be a stereotypical unionist - avoiding the bits you dont like.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Peace was forced on Unionism/Loyalism, they were always second in announcing ceasefires and signing up to accords, Belligerent unionism still hasn't signed up to the GFA while now pretending it was a hoodwink. Gas to read it from downcow, who pretends to be a moderate.
downcow wrote: » It was tit-for-tat. Everyone knew the loyalist reaction in the 80s &90s was reactive to republican violence. When the ira give up then the loyalist would inevitably stop.
downcow wrote: » Catch yourself on bonnie. It’s history. It depends where you are looking from and who’s writing it. It wasn’t a big deal to me. Of course it was very difficult for victims to see mass murderers released, but it secured the union for as long as we want it and no one outside ni can force us out. That was transformational and excellent news. I honestly don’t know how the ira sold it to their people. I can’t think of a single thing in it for them. But they needed a fig leaf. Their community had had enough. Loyalists were slaughtering innocent Catholics in bars etc and the ira were in a corner. The ira were inherently sectarian and they had carried out a vicious sectarian murder and intimidation campaign. So had the loyalists. The IRAs dilemma was when they tried to ride two horses. They were trying successfully to build their political support on the back of the hunger strikes. They were now in the conundrum that some of the ordinary voters on the street did not want them burning Protestants alive in la mon etc. They needed votes so they needed to back of the obvious sectarian murders and direct their campaign at the military This was a much more challenging target. Meanwhile the loyalist paramilitaries continued sectarian murder unabated. Protestants, unlike their catholic neighbours, never voted for the murder gangs, so they had nothing to lose. The ira had nowhere to turn. The community was afraid to go to the pub because of retaliatory actions by loyalists. Everyone knew that if the IRA stopped killing then the killing would stop. Gfa was the fig lead designed to enable this
FrancieBrady wrote: » You can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts. Loyalist violence in the lead up to the GFA, as they tried to wreck the peace, was far far more than that of the IRA. The IRA killed 36 people from 1994 to 1998 Loyalists killed over 80. 93 Catholics 58 Protestants lost their lives over the same period. In the three years after 1998 and the GFA Loyalists killed 28, the IRA killed 0 Whoever Loyalists were having their 'tit for tat' with, it wasn't the IRA.
downcow wrote: » You are reinforcing my point for me and also seriously misrepresenting the facts. Firstly I had been explaining that the ira was in a corner because of the sectarian onslaught be the loyalist murder gangs. So yes agree with the numbers pre gfa They had always realised that the way to get at the ira was to kill indescrimate innocent Catholics. Then the catholic community demanded the ira stop. As for your stats. Post gfa republicans have killed more than loyalists have. Most loyalist killings were in house feuding between their drug gangs. Republicans have had similar in house feuding and also muscle flexing when ordinary Catholics dared to challenge them like paul Quinn or the guy in short strand and needed murdered. I can’t think of any killings of Catholics by loyalists (non drug/Gang related) but republicans have killed at least into double figures Protestants as part of the old conflict. So go wash your mouth out after presenting those untruths in your last post
When the ira give up then the loyalist would inevitably stop.
downcow wrote: » So how about you three guys have a go at my question. Three good reasons why republicans would like a UI?
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » . It wasnt really there pre-Brexit. The Brexit deal has swung further towards the new status quo. It is now even in the interest of unificationists to abondon the topic and consider the future status of NI as settled for once and for all. And NI can really be made a great place with its unique foot in two jurisdiction status in which it now finds itself. It behoves both sides to now make their best efforts to maximise the great opportunity now presented them.
Fionn1952 wrote: » ....I'd suggest you have a wee look at some local NI based news to see just how well Brexit has settled the status quo....Christ, there's wishful thinking and there's that take. Those of a Nationalist persuasion are outraged at being removed from the EU against their will, those from a Unionist persuasion are outraged at the Irish Sea border and the perceived separation from their union, while shops are running low on stock and industries dependent on imports like steel are absolutely sh*tting themselves. While the deal puts a plaster over the wound, ultimately all NI has 'gained' is more paperwork and expense for a deal that could be changed in 4 years time (that alone would be a huge blocker for any investment with long term upside).
FrancieBrady wrote: » Trust me, it's more than Nationalists that are outraged to be taken out of the EU.
Fionn1952 wrote: » ... While the deal puts a plaster over the wound, ultimately all NI has 'gained' is more paperwork and expense for a deal that could be changed in 4 years time (that alone would be a huge blocker for any investment with long term upside).
downcow wrote: » Interesting stats here for a wee country that is a failure! It really is republican wishful thinkinghttps://ibb.co/Xycms5s
FrancieBrady wrote: » Anywhere that requires an internationally binding agreement between two sovereign governments just to function (and can't even do that for long periods) is a failed state. Discuss or run away from it and try to deflect.
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » Your mistake is to consider NI a state. It is a region of a state. Asking whether a region of any state is failed or otherwise, or to assess it as if it were a state, is nonsense. It is part of the UK, and so NI in isolation cannot be considered as a state.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You can take that one up with downcow.
downcow wrote: » What do you think could happen in 4 years that would change anything for investors?
Fionn1952 wrote: » The NI government has to consent to the NI protocol's continuance in four years, Downcow. Should it pass by simple majority, they would have to consent again a further 4 years down the line. Cross community consent would mean they had to consent again in a further 8 years. You think that level of uncertainty around NI's economic placement and trade future won't have any impact on the decision of some investors on whether to make a long term investment in NI? We're all aware unexpected things can happen, like Brexit itself, but when you're looking at any sort of significant investment, stability is a huge consideration. While investors can't account for the so called unknown unknowns, they can and will take the known unknowns into consideration.
downcow wrote: » Remind me what state the ROI would be in today had it not been rescued by “ an internationally binding agreement between TWENTY SIX sovereign governments just to function“. Francie you continually refuse to address the post I put up demonstrating ni is not a failure. I wouldn’t call it a success as I wouldn’t put that tag on any country or region. As Jonesie on dads army used to say “they don’t like it up them” lol
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » Would that be an example of the slippery or deflection non answering that others here accuse you of ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Significant difference...we are party to that agreement. Northern Ireland is the 'subject' of an internationally binding agreement and try as one party did to get the governments to ignore it, thet magnificently failed.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I used 'state' with a small s to signify a place...change that to a region if you wish, point still stands.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
