bonzothedog wrote: » But then it is very likely we revert to violence in the north, surely we need to do our best for the unionists and the moderates, I would probably vote for a united Ireland but only just- of the tradeoff is more violence and killing you can keep it.
MrMusician18 wrote: » I don't really understand why varadkar is saying titles like taoiseach will need to go on a United Ireland. The Constitution is changed by simple majority and there will be no majority for that. Even if it's part of a bundle of changes, I don't see the political gain for appeasement of what will be a small minority. It will also be quickly reversed by a nationalist government looking for an easy win.
eire4 wrote: » That is a very valid point. I think that there is good arguments for some changes in a new reunified Ireland as part of a new start for everyone that can be good not just as appeasement to unionists though, but positive for everyone. For instance our national anthem is very war like and I would be happy to see a new national anthem that was more positive and up lifting rather then one about war and fighting as an example.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Exactly what I meant. Symbolic gestures are fine also but I would not think a change of flag or anthem will cut much mustard with many anyhow. It will come down to how we interact and agree on matters of state and constitution and I genuinely don't see any huge issues there. Plenty of debate as happens anywhere but all happening in a democratic way.
downcow wrote: » You are very optimistic if you think you will contain it in the North
briany wrote: » Please elaborate.
downcow wrote: » I actually agree with you on that one Francie. I think I said on here some time ago, that it will be you guys feeding the crocodiles - and we will be the crocodiles. And rather than throw the toys out of the pram like the shinners did if someone accuses us of being crocodiles getting fed, I think we will all just have a big wry smile and be pleased that we are getting to you lol
briany wrote: » Whatever about such titles needing to go, it does raise the point of what a united Ireland would actually look like in terms of its institutions and so forth. The GFA doesn't really have a lot of detail on it, so there appears to be much ambiguity around basic questions like would it mean a new country or simply absorbing NI into the existing Republic?
downcow wrote: » Would that democracy extend to part of this new Ireland being allowed to be devolved if it so wished, or is it centralised majority rule from Dublin that you are talking about
FrancieBrady wrote: » downcow...in a democracy if you can find majority support for something you can do it.
downcow wrote: » Someone had referred to violence in the North following a united Ireland. Surely violence kicked off in the North in a united Ireland was no border and the main 'enemy' was in the south, then it would seem highly unusual that such violence would be contained in the North - unless of course the intention is to militarise the old border - and then you have to wonder what the point was a uniting Ireland and dividing the people
downcow wrote: » Could you explain to me the majority that achieved devolution for Northern Ireland within the UK? I didn't think you needed a majority for that sort of thing historically
downcow wrote: » I think I asked you yesterday why you think 10 million vaccines were exported out of the EU to the UK while none went the other way? It was a simple question and it would be nice simple answer from Republican any?
briany wrote: » Your scenario comes down to who would be starting the violence in the North that then leaks down south. If, in the case of a United Ireland, there were sudden violent pogroms against Unionist communities and Gardai firing rubber bullets at Orange Order parades, I could understand the logical progression towards violence. But if, on the other hand, it's Loyalists kicking off because they just can't handle a UI, without even giving it a chance, then they can basically F off and they would have no respectable international sympathy whatsoever.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What?
downcow wrote: » You said we would need a majority to support devolution for an area of Ireland. Do you mean a majority in the whole Island? If that is the case I don't remember a majority of the UK agreeing to devolution for NI or Scotland? So maybe we don't need a majority to achieve devolution
The current form of devolution in the UK goes back to the late 1990s. In 1997 voters chose to create a Scottish Parliamentand a National Assembly for Wales.
markodaly wrote: » Partition was also democracy in action, just saying.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The type of 'democracy' that is rocking up to your coast in a warship threatening immediate and terrible war. Yeh, right mark, you are welcome to that brand of democracy.
downcow wrote: » I don't see any ambiguity amongst most of the posters here. They all talk in terms of ROI absorbing Northern Ireland. They may not say it out right but it is crystal clear in their subtext. They refer to the changes that may or may not be needed in the constitution, with the flag, with the anthem, etc. can you not see the subtext. There are currently two flags, two countries, two anthems. In their eyes this is not about bringing two countries together in unification, they are not even considering my fly, my anthem, etc. it's really very obvious to all Unionists what people mean by a united Ireland
markodaly wrote: » The treaty was the treaty. I know you hate it and would have advocated more bloodshed, more war, hell you even advocated the old IRA invading the North, or even the British invading Ulster... mad off the wall stuff. However, Northern Ireland was part of the Free State for a mere 24 hours, until the rejoined the Union, as per the vote in Stormont. Democracy in action. That is all.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Under the threat of immediate and terrible war and Carson's guns mark. Come back into the real and factual world.
markodaly wrote: » The real world? I wasn't making grand pronouncements about invading the North, now was I? :pac:
FrancieBrady wrote: » Devolution in Northern Ireland was part of the GFA which was endorsed by the electorate in a referendum. Democracy in action.
jm08 wrote: » All we hear down here is loyalist / DUP demands. I'd like to hear a bit more from moderate unionists such as the Andrew Trimbles and Naomi Longs for a change. Its pointless talking to the Sammy Wilsons and Greg because they won't engage. Its not fair on possibly the 70-80% of people from NI who don't get a look in.
downcow wrote: » Do you think a threat of war would work again? It worked for Leo with the protocol
downcow wrote: » That was not endorse by the UK population and I don’t remember the UK population endorsing either scottish or welsh devolution. You have raised a really interesting point that I am encouraged by. So history has set a precedent that the entire population don’t need consulted on a region devolving. I therefore see no reason why an area to the north east of a new Ireland cannot devolve. One we devolve then we push for increased autonomy and eventually independence. Tell me what’s wrong with any of that?
