Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This is a ridiculous fault in your reasoning (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) that I've little doubt you're produce again in the future. The slave population in the US increased year-on-year, was that because they prospered? That's a rhetorical question, you need not embarrass yourself by trying to answer it..

There are many scholars out there who have looked at those numbers and provided explanations for them, none of them would stand over 'extreme discrimination' as a reason.

Take a wee read again at what you posted and tell me who should be embarrassed?

I am admitting discrimination against your community in north. You are denying discrimination against my community in south.

Your community in north flourished and my community in the south were decimated

Crazy stuff.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

I am admitting discrimination against your community in north. You are denying discrimination against my community in south.

I am not denying there was discrimination. I am denying that a reduction in the numbers of Protestants in the south was as a result of discrimination, because it wasn't.

Your community in north flourished

The population increased. Catholics tend to have large families. If Catholics flourished then it was no thanks to Unionists or being in the north.

and my community in the south were decimated

The numbers of Protestants was in decline long before independence and were accelerated by loss of men in WWI, migration because of loss of privilege after independence and many Protestants were formerly employed in the administration of the British state and enforcement of British rule.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I am not denying there was discrimination. I am denying that a reduction in the numbers of Protestants in the south was as a result of discrimination, because it wasn't.

The population increased. Catholics tend to have large families. If Catholics flourished then it was no thanks to Unionists or being in the north.

Because of WWI, migration because of loss of privilege, former being employed in the administration of the British state and enforcement of British rule.

This was all shown to downcow several times in data and links.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Westminster will be so exercised if the polls turn against a union with NI?

Well, given they have to remain a neutral actor and seeing as they have no selfish or strategic interest in being in Ireland, I would assume that they would
t kick up a stink.

But the Tories are in power, so who knows.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I am not denying there was discrimination. I am denying that a reduction in the numbers of Protestants in the south was as a result of discrimination, because it wasn't.

The population increased. Catholics tend to have large families. If Catholics flourished then it was no thanks to Unionists or being in the north.

The numbers of Protestants was in decline long before independence and were accelerated by loss of men in WWI, migration because of loss of privilege after independence and many Protestants were formerly employed in the administration of the British state and enforcement of British rule.

Tom. Let’s go gently because I am actually inclined to believe you are being genuine with that post.
Do you believe the numbers of Protestants in the north declined during the troubles due to the actions of the ira?

downcow wrote: »

So you accept equivalent misuses of power were ongoing south of the border.
They were all disgusting whichever side of the border

Wait? Are we in the "Irish Republic - a failure 99 years on? " thread?

Would be nice to discuss the failures of the North, where a bigoted state victimised and murdered their citizenry rather than engaging in whataboutism.

I mean, a 30-odd year civil war that waged because Unionists had issues with equality is something you might have been interested in I would have thought.

downcow wrote: »

Really appreciate it. You are a rare breed on this thread. If you think I have ducked any question, let me know and I’ll sort it

Your whole existence is ducking questions.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Your whole existence is ducking questions.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question on how he sees devolution working after a successful border poll. Fascinated to know the thinking on that one.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Tom. Let’s go gently because I am actually inclined to believe you are being genuine with that post.

Protestant population decline in the south has been examined by people much more scholarly than I and none would stand over 'extreme discrimination' as a factor.

I have little doubt there was discrimination as it a trait of humans to discriminate. There is lots of anecdotal evidence of big industries in the South preferring to employ Protestant/Unionist workers even after independence. Did you know some of the first improvised armoured cars in the world were made in the Guinness Brewery to help the British put down the rising in 1916?

Do you believe the numbers of Protestants in the north declined during the troubles due to the actions of the ira?

I have no idea if they did or not. I wouldn't be surprised if people left because of the Troubles.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wait? Are we in the "Irish Republic - a failure 99 years on? " thread?

Would be nice to discuss the failures of the North, where a bigoted state victimised and murdered their citizenry rather than engaging in whataboutism.

I mean, a 30-odd year civil war that waged because Unionists had issues with equality is something you might have been interested in I would have thought.

I must have missed that civil war. I just remember a sectarian terrorist campaign which was losing support throughout until the perpetrators finally decided they had to end it before their own community turned on them.
Thank god for ordinary decent nationalists who want to achieve their ends through exclusively peaceful means.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the key point in bold.

For a border poll to be considered you need

(1) A nationalist majority in Stormont i.e. a majority of MLAs declaring themselves to be nationalist

(2) Consistent support in opinion polls over a period of at least 18 months for a united Ireland

(3) A detailed roadmap and explanation of the implications of unity for Government finances, health, education, tax, social welfare etc. We do not need another situation like the Brexit empty shelves we have this month because people didn't understand what would happen.

And these cast-iron requirements are in your head right?

Re point no. 3, you can't discuss these things with the likes of yourself, as you have no interest in not being disingenuous.

downcow wrote: »

Good post blanch. That’s a pretty high bar for them. They’d need to learn the Fosbury Flop, cause they are a long way off currently

How is it a high bar?

Blanch just made that up.

You are pointless.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Protestant population decline in the south has been examined by people much more scholarly than I and none would stand over 'extreme discrimination' as a factor.

I have little doubt there was discrimination as it a trait of humans to discriminate. There is lots of anecdotal evidence of big industries in the South preferring to employ Protestant/Unionist workers even after independence. Did you know some of the first improvised armoured cars in the world were made in the Guinness Brewery to help the British put down the rising in 1916?

I have no idea if they did or not. I wouldn't be surprised if people left because of the Troubles.

We you seem to have great understanding around how british oppression affected Catholics. It may be useful for you to examine how ira oppression affected Protestants

maccored

downcow wrote: »

I must have missed that civil war. I just remember a sectarian terrorist campaign which was losing support throughout until the perpetrators finally decided they had to end it before their own community turned on them.
Thank god for ordinary decent nationalists who want to achieve their ends through exclusively peaceful means.

if unionism had the cop on to not discriminate in the firstplace, nationalists wouldnt have had need to try and achieve 'their ends'

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very interestig article on Slugger, which clears up the role of the SoS.
That he can call a poll when 'it appears likely...etc; is an ancillary power to powers he/she already has.
In effect, he/she can call a poll at any time.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2021/01/24/a-border-poll-can-be-held-at-any-time-redux/

That doesn’t really change anything, as a border poll, in the absence of it being likely to pass would be a breach of the GFA and divisive as a result.

Furthermore, I read the article in the Sunday Times just now and I was surprised to see that it said that support for the Union had gone up during the last year by 1 or 2 percentage points. Now I understand what all the noise on this today is about, hiding the fact that support for a united Ireland is decreasing in Northern Ireland.

Granadino

downcow wrote: »

Thank god for ordinary decent nationalists who want to achieve their ends through exclusively peaceful means.

Is this the odd thing though. Ordinary decent nationalists and ordinary decent unionists. When the chips are down, one still wants out, and one wants to stay in...

downcow wrote: »

I must have missed that civil war. I just remember a sectarian terrorist campaign which was losing support throughout until the perpetrators finally decided they had to end it before their own community turned on them.
Thank god for ordinary decent nationalists who want to achieve their ends through exclusively peaceful means.

:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question on how he sees devolution working after a successful border poll. Fascinated to know the thinking on that one.

It’s not difficult. Just take a look at our current devolution.
A minority wants more recognition for their identity, so the majority magnanimously says let’s have devolution so as you don’t feel you are being dominated by the big central power. Let’s have a local assembly elected by pr.

Have you got it now?. We are quite used to it up here

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn’t really change anything, as a border poll, in the absence of it being likely to pass would be a breach of the GFA and divisive as a result.

Furthermore, I read the article in the Sunday Times just now and I was surprised to see that it said that support for the Union had gone up during the last year by 1 or 2 percentage points. Now I understand what all the noise on this today is about, hiding the fact that support for a united Ireland is decreasing in Northern Ireland.

I mean, when you can come into a thread and make your own propositions as FACT and then dismiss what Francie posted there, you would almost come to the conclusion that you're talking absolute práisce and have no interest in discussing this honestly.

Now, I have always thought that of you on this subject, but it's worth reiterating.

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn’t really change anything, as a border poll, in the absence of it being likely to pass would be a breach of the GFA and divisive as a result.

Furthermore, I read the article in the Sunday Times just now and I was surprised to see that it said that support for the Union had gone up during the last year by 1 or 2 percentage points. Now I understand what all the noise on this today is about, hiding the fact that support for a united Ireland is decreasing in Northern Ireland.

Off you go and argue it with the experts.

The SoS can call a poll at any time and that is as official as it gets. You are wasting everybodies time arguing this now.

downcow wrote: »

It’s not difficult. Just take a look at our current devolution.
A minority wants more recognition for their identity, so the majority magnanimously says let’s have devolution so as you don’t feel you are being dominated by the big central power. Let’s have a local assembly elected by pr.

Have you got it now?. We are quite used to it up here

I don't think that means what you think it means, or if you are using it correctly then it's just a lie.

downcow wrote: »

It’s not difficult. Just take a look at our current devolution.
A minority wants more recognition for their identity, so the majority magnanimously says let’s have devolution so as you don’t feel you are being dominated by the big central power. Let’s have a local assembly elected by pr.

Have you got it now?. We are quite used to it up here

And what if they say no, a majority just voted for a UI?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Off you go and argue it with the experts.

The SoS can call a poll at any time and that is as official as it gets. You are wasting everybodies time arguing this now.

I didn’t disagree with the fact that he could call a poll at any time, I only pointed out that it would be a breach of the GFA. There is no penalty for a breach of the GFA so he can do it, but that doesn’t make it any less a breach of the GFA, which is therefore divisive.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And what if they say no, a majority just voted for a UI?

Then you kick off all that **** that kicked of last time in the north when one community said, ‘we are the majority and we decide’. Your friend big Ian was number 1 culprit
Now we are starting to agree Francie

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn’t disagree with the fact that he could call a poll at any time, I only pointed out that it would be a breach of the GFA. There is no penalty for a breach of the GFA so he can do it, but that doesn’t make it any less a breach of the GFA, which is therefore divisive.

Link to the legal opinion on this. McCord case also gives him the right under the specific clause in the GFA to call a poll whenever he/she thinks it is likely without having to provide justification.

Same thing and no breach.You are making stuff up again.

downcow wrote: »

Then you kick off all that **** that kicked of last time in the north when one community said, we are the majority and we decide’. Your friend big Ian was number 2 culprit
Now we are starting to agree Francie

No, there will be a UI, where everybdy has representatives elected to government. A normal democracy.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Link to the legal opinion on this. McCord case also gives him the right under the specific clause in the GFA to call a poll whenever he/she thinks it is likely without having to provide justification.

Same thing and no breach.You are making stuff up again.

Not at all, the reasoning is clear and logical. You have no substantive response so you are attacking the poster.

The British government can call a poll on anything they like at any time, that is the law, but calling one when the conditions set out in the GFA are not met is a breach of the GFA, but with no penalties for doing so, it would be a divisive move. I am not saying he can’t do it, I am saying it would be divisive.

And that works both ways. Imagine some dissident group managed to blow up Stormont and public feeling turned against nationalism as a result and all the don’t knows moved into the unionist camp and a Tory SoS called a border poll to take advantage to rule out another poll for a generation, you would be the first one jumping up and down screaming about a breach of the GFA.