United Ireland Poll - please vote

downcow wrote: »

This was the greatest surrender ever by republicanism.
The gfa changed nothing in this regard. If there was ever a majority in ni who wanted to unite with Roi then it would happen. No way would a British government stand in the way of a majority for unification of the two countries. If there was a majority in Scotland to join with Iceland then the Brit gov would allow it.
Republicans said they did accept ni but then agreed to self determination for ni.
I could never understand why republicans supported gfa

I agree with you somewhat, I used to think the GFA was a con that the British influenced the IRA through informers into the GFA but now I think it was more to do with knowing that victory was becoming less and less likely as time went on and the IRA also becoming less viable as time went on so they decided to cash in the chips and also stop the bloodshed that was by the late 80s early 90s becoming pointless.

I believe by the late 80s the revolutionary period was over and all chance of victory had disappeared, although the IRA was still functioning to an extent the propaganda war had been lost, the enniskillen bombing put the nail in the coffin whoever messed up that bombing effectively lost the IRA the war.

downcow

guy2231 wrote: »

I agree with you somewhat, I used to think the GFA was a con that the British influenced the IRA through informers into the GFA but now I think it was more to do with knowing that victory was becoming less and less likely as time went on and the IRA also becoming less viable as time went on so they decided to cash in the chips and also stop the bloodshed that was by the late 80s early 90s becoming pointless.

I believe by the late 80s the revolutionary period was over and all chance of victory had disappeared, although the IRA was still functioning to an extent the propaganda war had been lost, the enniskillen bombing put the nail in the coffin whoever messed up that bombing effectively lost the IRA the war.

I very much agree with all you are saying.
One additional pressure on them was the reprehensible gun attacks on catholic pubs by UFF in retaliation of ira attacks. Nationalists had become afraid to go to the pub and were wanting the ira to stop attacks

downcow wrote: »

This was the greatest surrender ever by republicanism.
The gfa changed nothing in this regard. If there was ever a majority in ni who wanted to unite with Roi then it would happen. No way would a British government stand in the way of a majority for unification of the two countries. If there was a majority in Scotland to join with Iceland then the Brit gov would allow it.
Republicans said they did accept ni but then agreed to self determination for ni.
I could never understand why republicans supported gfa

Who exactly do you think this kind of stuff fools?

Partition created a situation where the British would never have to let go to a majority...that was the point of it ffs.

The British also firstly stood by and watched as Unionism turned into the sectarian bigoted suprematist state it became and then tried to support it and maintain it.

That was before being brought to the table and forced to create a state with equality and parity principles enshrined and acceding power and involvement to Dublin in the decision making process.
Two of the core reasons why belligerent Unionism and loyalism has hated the GFA - the agreement they pretend is a victory for them.

downcow wrote: »

I very much agree with all you are saying.
One additional pressure on them was the reprehensible gun attacks on catholic pubs by UFF in retaliation of ira attacks. Nationalists had become afraid to go to the pub and were wanting the ira to stop attacks

True but this was the work of the intelligence services/British state doing their dirty work via proxy.

UDA/UFF was little more than a proxy gang for the British in the fight against the IRA.

Shebean

downcow wrote: »

This was the greatest surrender ever by republicanism.
The gfa changed nothing in this regard. If there was ever a majority in ni who wanted to unite with Roi then it would happen. No way would a British government stand in the way of a majority for unification of the two countries. If there was a majority in Scotland to join with Iceland then the Brit gov would allow it.
Republicans said they did accept ni but then agreed to self determination for ni.
I could never understand why republicans supported gfa

All sides claimed they wanted peace. It was called the peace process.
You're suggesting Republican's wanted a democratic peaceful solution with the possibility of a UI still on the table? Yes, I'd agree.
Surrender is a bit of a childish summation don't you think? As both sides agreed, the British and Unionists 'surrendered' too? I can see a grown up conversation on who you might think fared better.

Shebean

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who exactly do you think this kind of stuff fools?

Partition created a situation where the British would never have to let go to a majority...that was the point of it ffs.

The British also firstly stood by and watched as Unionism turned into the sectarian bigoted suprematist state it became and then tried to support it and maintain it.

That was before being brought to the table and forced to create a state with equality and parity principles enshrined and acceding power and involvement to Dublin in the decision making process.
Two of the core reasons why belligerent Unionism and loyalism has hated the GFA - the agreement they pretend is a victory for them.

I suppose if you believe or are pretending everything was all equal and fair for all communities until the GFA was signed it might skew your outlook but when you look at everything the civil rights movement, SF, SDLP and the IRA gained for Catholics/nationalists, like not being burnt out of their homes any more and the British authorities apologising for the murders and massacres they perpetrated things have come a long way. A long way further to go of course.
I wonder would unionists circa 1960's see the GFA as Republican's surrendering or Unionists selling out?
Either way I think over all the GFA was a good thing.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote:

I really think you need to read the GFA carefully. Because it actually legitimises and enshrines the right to Irish unity.

The constitutional change enshrined partition as we no longer recognize NI as being our territory.

Your points are a very succinct example of denialism as you refuse to recognize that as long as the people in N.I. choose to remain part of the UK, that right to partition is enshrined in the GFA.

Denialism refusing to recognize that they could choose partition for the next hundred years. That also includes northern nationalists who prefer to keep the NHS and cheap cars over the fuzzy feeling of unity.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The constitutional change enshrined partition as we no longer recognize NI as being our territory.

Your points are a very succinct example of denialism as you refuse to recognize that as long as the people in N.I. choose to remain part of the UK, that right to partition is enshrined in the GFA.

Denialism refusing to recognize that they could choose partition for the next hundred years. That also includes northern nationalists who prefer to keep the NHS and cheap cars over the fuzzy feeling of unity.

Wrong Jimmy

The GFA does not enshrine partition. It actually legitimises the effort to end partition and recognises that partition was wrong.
I accept the majority wish to remain in the UK but I still object to partirion. If I lived in the north that objection is officially recognised .

You can keep trying to demean people but it isnt based in any truth.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Nationalists had become afraid to go to the pub and were wanting the ira to stop attacks

This is what supporters of unionist murder gangs say to themselves.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wrong Jimmy

Hard to tell difference between wind up merchants and people who hold these views in reality.

Indeed in the GFA London accepted the contested nature of the north of our country by accepting that it will exercise its power with 'rigorous impartiality'.

The British/London wouldn't dream of acting impartially with Scotland and Wales, quite the opposite.

So what we have in the Irish constitution is the will to unite our country and the British in the GFA saying 'ye lot sort it out'.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I really think you need to read the GFA carefully. Because it actually legitimises and enshrines the right to Irish unity.

There is a core reason why partitionists and belligerent unionists have never really either respected the FULL agreement and had at best an a la carte attitude to it and the full suite of rights it bestowed.

Your post is a perfect example of it .

It doesn't enshrine any right to Irish unity. You are posting nonsense once more.

It enshrines the democratic right of the majority of the people.

It is the exclusionary nationalists who have failed to respect the FULL agreement, still clinging to the territorial definition of nationhood that is on the way out.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wrong Jimmy

The GFA does not enshrine partition. It actually legitimises the effort to end partition and recognises that partition was wrong.
I accept the majority wish to remain in the UK but I still object to partirion. If I lived in the north that objection is officially recognised .

You can keep trying to demean people but it isnt based in any truth.

Nowhere in the GFA does it recognise that partition was wrong, that is fantasy. In fact it allows for partition to go on for ever.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nowhere in the GFA does it recognise that partition was wrong, that is fantasy. In fact it allows for partition to go on for ever.

If you give people the right to aspire to a UI then you implicitly accept that for some partition was wrong.

The GFA (hate to break this to you) allows for a UI if a majority decide on it and allows for the Union to continue if a majority decide on that.

50+1 either way.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you give people the right to aspire to a UI then you implicitly accept that for some partition was wrong.

The GFA (hate to break this to you) allows for a UI if a majority decide on it and allows for the Union to continue if a majority decide on that.

50+1 either way.

For some taxation is wrong, and people have the right to aspire to the abolition of taxation. This is what you actually said:

it actually.........enshrines the right to Irish unity.

That simply isn't the case.

blanch152 wrote: »

For some taxation is wrong, and people have the right to aspire to the abolition of taxation. This is what you actually said:

That simply isn't the case.

If a majority decide - Irish unity happens. It is a right enshrined in the agreement.

You know it is a 'right' when frightened partitionists and Unionists attempt to change the terms of the agreement and seek super majoirities and other vetos in the event of the majority voting to excercise their right.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If a majority decide - Irish unity happens. It is a right enshrined in the agreement.

You know it is a 'right' when frightened partitionists and Unionists attempt to change the terms of the agreement and seek super majoirities and other vetos in the event of the majority voting to excercise their right.

Rinse and repeat in response to nonsense.

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't enshrine any right to Irish unity. You are posting nonsense once more.

It enshrines the democratic right of the majority of the people.

blanch152 wrote: »

Rinse and repeat in response to nonsense.

If the majority decide there will be Irish Unity. That is a right.

I know you hate to admit it but that doesn't alter the fact.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the majority decide there will be Irish Unity. That is a right.

I know you hate to admit it but that doesn't alter the fact.

A right to respect the views of the majority is not the same as a right to a united Ireland.

If you believe that the latter was in the GFA, you were sold a pup.

blanch152 wrote: »

A right to respect the views of the majority is not the same as a right to a united Ireland.

If you believe that the latter was in the GFA, you were sold a pup.

The GFA says that if a majority vote for a UI, then that is what will happen. I.E. A right to a UI if a majority voter for it.

Pedantry nor stubborn belligerence won't remove that fact.

ittakestwo

The GFA allows for the Irish nation to cover all the island. Everyone born in Ireland can choose Irish citizenship and even with Brexit we see there cant be a physical internal border in the nation.

The GFA did concede the fact that partion did happen to the nation but the alternative was to go on with a perpetual war on the fact it did. The GFA is a successful peace agreement because it was fair. The world acknowledges the work and give and take in the peace agreement. The US and EU obviously did not want Brexit tampering with it.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who exactly do you think this kind of stuff fools?

Partition created a situation where the British would never have to let go to a majority...that was the point of it ffs.

The British also firstly stood by and watched as Unionism turned into the sectarian bigoted suprematist state it became and then tried to support it and maintain it.

That was before being brought to the table and forced to create a state with equality and parity principles enshrined and acceding power and involvement to Dublin in the decision making process.
Two of the core reasons why belligerent Unionism and loyalism has hated the GFA - the agreement they pretend is a victory for them.

So are you seriously saying that if there was no gfa today and if there was a clear majority of ni that wanted to break away from U.K. and form a UI, that U.K. would hold on to ni? What are you drinking tonight? You are clearly 100% wrong. U.K. does not ave the deep love for ni that you seem to think

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

The GFA allows for the Irish nation to cover all the island. Everyone born in Ireland can choose Irish citizenship and even with Brexit we see there cant be a physical internal border in the nation.

The GFA did concede the fact that partion did happen to the nation but the alternative was to go on with a perpetual war on the fact it did. The GFA is a successful peace agreement because it was fair. The world acknowledges the work and give and take in the peace agreement. The US and EU obviously did not want Brexit tampering with it.

Roi can offer everyone on the island, or everyone with red hair and big feet, Irish citizenship. They don’t need gfa to do it.
You guys need to get real. U.K. will not stand in the way of any region who want to leave if there is a clear majority wishing it, and any nation can offer citizenship to anyone they like. Gfa wasn’t required for either

downcow wrote: »

So are you seriously saying that if there was no gfa today and if there was a clear majority of ni that wanted to break away from U.K. and form a UI, that U.K. would hold on to ni? What are you drinking tonight? You are clearly 100% wrong. U.K. does not ave the deep love for ni that you seem to think

For once these last few pages downcow actually seems to be talking more sense than anyone else on this thread.

downcow wrote: »

So are you seriously saying that if there was no gfa today and if there was a clear majority of ni that wanted to break away from U.K. and form a UI, that U.K. would hold on to ni? What are you drinking tonight? You are clearly 100% wrong. U.K. does not ave the deep love for ni that you seem to think

I believe the GFA was the British admitting defeat on NI and tacitly withdrawing.

They don't care anymore downcow, we've been trying to tell Unionists that for a long time, but they will never learn it seems.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I believe the GFA was the British admitting defeat on NI and tacitly withdrawing.

They don't care anymore downcow, we've been trying to tell Unionists that for a long time, but they will never learn it seems.

The declaration during the time of the peace agreement and the policy of the British government saying that the British had no strategic interest in Northern Ireland has recently been exposed as false from Boris Johnson himself, there is a strategic interest in Northern Ireland.

The GFA was far from a victory by the IRA, it was not defeat either but certainly not a victory anyone who thinks it was is delusional.

guy2231 wrote: »

The declaration during the time of the peace agreement and the policy of the British government saying that the British had no strategic interest in Northern Ireland has recently been exposed as false from Boris Johnson himself, there is a strategic interest in Northern Ireland.

The GFA was far from a victory by the IRA, it was not defeat either but certainly not a victory anyone who thinks it was is delusional.

As we saw with Brexit the British talk a lot of guff about NI. At the end of the day though we all seen with our own eyes what that in effect means. Unless you are delusional.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As we saw with Brexit the British talk a lot of guff about NI. At the end of the day though we all seen with our own eyes what that in effect means. Unless you are delusional.

They do talk a lot of guff, they talked for decades how they had no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland which was complete and utter rubbish

Junkyard Tom

guy2231 wrote: »

They do talk a lot of guff, they talked for decades how they had no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland which was complete and utter rubbish

Pulling out would have been too embarrassing but I don't think the British have any great love for their foothold in Ireland.

guy2231 wrote: »

They do talk a lot of guff, they talked for decades how they had no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland which was complete and utter rubbish

No that is guff too. It was mentioned once, when it suited them to say it. They use NI to their own selfish ends.