nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

United Ireland Poll - please vote

bonzothedog

Simple question - if there was a poll for a United Ireland would you vote yes or no - or yes but it would have to happen within 10 years.

Assumptions - there is economic sense to it and that Ireland can afford it.

The majority of the north want it and opinion polls are showing this. The background work has been done and the unionists though far from happy have reluctantly agreed with accepting the vote's result.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I didn't.

'SF' (a political party) did not kill McCartney.
Members of SF were involved in the incident and SF didn't deal with it properly.

It is akin to putting FG, the political party, in the dock, because a member glasses somebody in a pub.

I think...(I'll say it again. :rolleyes:) that SF are a post conflict/war party and that they have fulfilled their commitments to the GFA. Might they get stuff wrong in the future?
Yes, they probably will and it will be criticsed by me as I have criticised them for the funeral mistakes, etc etc etc.

Why do you always draw up inappropriate comparisons?

The issue here isn't the crime, it is the cover-up, the co-ordinated stories, the failure to co-operate with the police. None of those apply anywhere else, only to Sinn Fein.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you having troubles with your blood pressure HC?

I notice you totally ignore the fact that I call it a 'conflict/war' to cover the various views of what happened.

An exclusionary approach as always.

"Conflict/War" doesn't encompass the view of it being a thuggish, criminal and wholly unjustified terrorist campaign.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

An exclusionary approach as always.

"Conflict/War" doesn't encompass the view of it being a thuggish, criminal and wholly unjustified terrorist campaign.

Absolutely covers it for me.

From the get go, it was a thuggish, criminal wholly unjustified terrorist campaign.

All 'conflict/wars' are. There are no honourable wars, every single one has obscene acts of human depravity carried out as part of them.
I can name a few if you wish from history, or give examples of 'thuggish, criminal wholly unjustified' terror acts perpetrated by every single one of the players in our own conflict/war.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Why do you always draw up inappropriate comparisons?

The issue here isn't the crime, it is the cover-up, the co-ordinated stories, the failure to co-operate with the police. None of those apply anywhere else, only to Sinn Fein.

I don't believe 'SF, the political party' covered up what happened. I believe some members of SF did.
They were sanctioned by the party.

Shebean

There's more than SF supporters want a united Ireland.
If it looks likely both FF and FG will be all over it.

Shebean

blanch152 wrote: »

An exclusionary approach as always.

"Conflict/War" doesn't encompass the view of it being a thuggish, criminal and wholly unjustified terrorist campaign.

Yes. While Cameron and Johnson have made apologies decades too late, there is a lot left needs addressing.

eire4

Shebean wrote: »

There's more than SF supporters want a united Ireland.
If it looks likely both FF and FG will be all over it.

Ì know I certainly am. Although not a FF or FG supporter either.

guy2231

jh79 wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that the IRA were the greatest threat to our security. Jerry McCabe , Stack, O Snod and his spy ring.

Good Republicans with links to SF will just change to a different type of criminality and will have the benefit of a "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" attitude from SF. They benefit from that now so why would it change?

Not loyalists or the British government?

Both of which were responsible for countless murders of people in the 26 counties including the Dublin Monaghan bombings.

34 innocent people killed in those bombings alone.

Junkyard Tom

The sooner the whole United Ireland thing is competed for by the southern political parties the better as I think a lot of the anti-UI stuff is SF-hatred. I mean, the McCartney murder (I had to google the name to make sure it wasn't a more recent instance) happened 16 years ago yet the anti-SF obsessives are bringing it to a UI thread?

There was some serious blood-letting carried out down here after the civil war so let's not get all self-righteous about what happened in the north. FF walked into the Dail in the 30's armed with loaded weapons in fear of a FG led putsch.

There are people in the north who lost loved ones in the Troubles to the IRA who are less bitter than a couple of the names here. Time to move on from the 'trauma' of having SF in the Dail well into the 21st Century lads, looks like they're here to stay for the foreseeable future.

lurleen lumpkin

It's a shoo-in if this Australia trade deal happens.

smurgen

guy2231 wrote: »

Not loyalists or the British government?

Both of which were responsible for countless murders of people in the 26 counties including the Dublin Monaghan bombings.

34 innocent people killed in those bombings alone.

Lots of blood on their hands.

https://twitter.com/Joebakersf/status/1395879043665432581?s=19

guy2231

smurgen wrote: »

Lots of blood on their hands.

https://twitter.com/Joebakersf/status/1395879043665432581?s=19

Shushh, the posters on here only want to hear about victims of the IRA.

[Deleted User]

guy2231 wrote: »

Shushh, the posters on here only want to hear about victims of the IRA.

Unlike ye guys i don't have to check who carried out the murder first before deciding whether it was wrong.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Unlike ye guys i don't have to check who carried out the murder first before deciding whether it was wrong.

Funny how there is a list of 'selected (for emotive reasons) victims' here though, exploited routinely by the same few.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Funny how there is a list of 'selected (for emotive reasons) victims' here though, exploited routinely by the same few.

And you don't think that because the perpetrators of these crimes want to form the next government that this selectively is justified?

I know the answer is no because you are biased because of your "it's for the cause" mentality.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

And you don't think that because the perpetrators of these crimes want to form the next government that this selectively is justified?

I know the answer is no because you are biased because of your "it's for the cause" mentality.

Ah...the 'SF murdered x' syndrome raises it's head again.

guy2231

jh79 wrote: »

And you don't think that because the perpetrators of these crimes want to form the next government that this selectively is justified?

I know the answer is no because you are biased because of your "it's for the cause" mentality.

Parties that have been responsible for countless murders of innocent civilians and massacres of innocent protestants have been in government for the last 100 years I don't see the difference.

[Deleted User]

guy2231 wrote: »

Parties that have been responsible for countless murders of innocent civilians and massacres of innocent protestants have been in government for the last 100 years I don't see the difference.

The day a member of another party witnesses a murder but pretends to be in the toilet you might have a point.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The day a member of another party witnesses a murder but pretends to be in the toilet you might have a point.

Again, you distort the facts to make an emotive point.

There was a brawl in the pub.

[Deleted User]

The issues people have with SF are evident on this thread and other threads as well, but the aspiration for a UI is not confined to SF although it may seem that way to some.

There appears to be a broad movement developing momentum now that encapsulates political entities and individuals from a wide spectrum of the populace on the island that I don't think was evident to such an extent before.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah...the 'SF murdered x' syndrome raises it's head again.

That was a rapid turnaround. We usually get a week between talking points.

downcow

smurgen wrote: »

Lots of blood on their hands.

https://twitter.com/Joebakersf/status/1395879043665432581?s=19

Have you a reason for posting this tragedy on here. We could post several everyday unfortunately

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Have you a reason for posting this tragedy on here. We could post several everyday unfortunately

That's a bit rich from the lad who goes into the thread devoted to the exoneration of the Ballymurphy victims after their murder by the British Army and the ensuing cover-up to moan about the equality of victims.
Catch yourself on.

[Deleted User]

Question for those in favour of a united Ireland, which includes myself. How would you feel about losing to flag and anthem as a condition of a united Ireland?

For me it would be a new political entity and a natural consequence of progress. A change in a couple of symbols would be a tiny price to pay.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's a bit rich from the lad who goes into the thread devoted to the exoneration of the Ballymurphy victims after their murder by the British Army and the ensuing cover-up to moan about the equality of victims.
Catch yourself on.

I didn’t do any such thing. I just challenged the lie that no governments were blocking prosecution of killers of Protestants. I just like facts.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Question for those in favour of a united Ireland, which includes myself. How would you feel about losing to flag and anthem as a condition of a united Ireland?

For me it would be a new political entity and a natural consequence of progress. A change in a couple of symbols would be a tiny price to pay.

If it's a democratic decision and not a sop to Unionists to get them on board. I'd wait til they ask for the change after the vote mind you. Endless concessions aren't needed either.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

How would you feel about losing to flag and anthem as a condition of a united Ireland?

No too bothered to be honest, a small price to pay to finally end the malevolent influence of British jurisdiction in Ireland.

blanch152

mehico wrote: »

The issues people have with SF are evident on this thread and other threads as well, but the aspiration for a UI is not confined to SF although it may seem that way to some.

There appears to be a broad movement developing momentum now that encapsulates political entities and individuals from a wide spectrum of the populace on the island that I don't think was evident to such an extent before.

I think the latest opinion poll in Northern Ireland might soften your cough a bit.

Support for nationalist parties is at 37%, pretty much unchanged since the last Assembly elections, suggesting that a border poll is as far away as ever, the so-called demographic dividend just isn't paying out.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

I think the latest opinion poll in Northern Ireland might soften your cough a bit.

Support for nationalist parties is at 37%, pretty much unchanged since the last Assembly elections, suggesting that a border poll is as far away as ever, the so-called demographic dividend just isn't paying out.

As far away as ever? What was the percentage of Nationalist seats in 1938? 1962? 2003?

One could argue that the demographics haven't moved significantly for one election cycle due to a strong growth in the middle ground (who may or may not support Unification).....but it is entirely ignoring basic trend analysis to suggest it is as far away as ever. It requires completely ignoring or handwaving the consistent drop in support for parties who are explicitly Unionist.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

As far away as ever? What was the percentage of Nationalist seats in 1938? 1962? 2003?

One could argue that the demographics haven't moved significantly for one election cycle due to a strong growth in the middle ground (who may or may not support Unification).....but it is entirely ignoring basic trend analysis to suggest it is as far away as ever. It requires completely ignoring or handwaving the consistent drop in support for parties who are explicitly Unionist.

Alliance are also shedding votes to the uup. A consequence of the uup choseing a very liberal leader who is strong in opposition to the protocol