Northern Ireland 2125?

Fermanagh, Antrim, Down, Derry, Tyrone and Armagh have been under the British Crown for substantially longer than 100 years, the other 26 counties left, the state now known as NI didn't have a change of rule, therefore the statement is not wrong. If Cork struck out on it's own tomorrow, would you say that Ireland has only been a Republic since that day?

We're getting bogged down in a pretty pointless semantic argument, but it is certainly easy for anyone to understand the argument that what is now NI has been under continuous British rule going back to before NI existed.

What is now called NI has been under British rule for substantially longer than 100 years. Happy?

While my post may seem patronising, yours seems intentionally obtuse with no other reason than giving you some sort of perceived win over someone posting from a Unionist perspective.

The entire statement and the premise based on it is wrong.

I get what you are trying to do but it is wrong.
You are trying to make the case for the continuation of something on bogus grounds, 'NI' has only existed since partition and under the authority it has been has failed as a Wee Country and now requires an international agreement between two sovereign countries just to function.
No 'country' that calls itself successful requires a similar international agreement just to function on a day to day basis.
That 'agreement' has within it the mechanism to end NI.

How are you going to get those clauses changed @downcow

No, as I explain above, the premise downcow makes on foot of bogus info is fundamentally wrong as a result.

Im very optimistic about unification. I think it will happen within the next 20 years and I think it will be relatively peaceful. Yes, you may get a few housing estates in certain poorer parts of the north rioting for a few days, but it will die down and people will get on with it.

I see from other threads that downcow is advocating parts of the NE of NI getting independence i.e.becoming a unionist country (ironically not part of the union!) That's not happening. The UK government will enforce the Good Friday Agreement - they will be in breach if they dont. If it happened (very unlikely) any violent seperatist NI group will be dealt with quickly by the UK security forces.

Those who think a separatist militia would have the wherewithal to sustain a destabilising campaign are totally deluded and don't understand the previous conflict.

Belligerent Unionists do not have the hinterland that was available to the native population. It's as simple as that.

Unless they have the collusion of the UK authorities a separatist group would not have a hope. They'd be hemmed in very quickly and would indeed only be left with the option of wrecking their own areas.

Using the correct terminology? Whatever next Pere! 😁

This is true. As the balance tilts more towards those of an Irish persuasion, the question becomes more important than ever.

in hindsight the Brits made a balls out of partition. If they had left out Tyrone and Fermanagh (Catholic majority) and hacked off parts of Armagh/Derry, partition would have been permanent.

Northern Ireland 2125.

Religion. Majority atheist, then Muslim, Christian, Spiritual, other ….

Allegiances, These islands/ Europe.

Orange & Green (old school ideas) consigned to the history books

Economy, Hydrogen car manufacturing, ship building (again) + Solar farms, wine & beer production due to warmer climate.

Stable economy, stable society, settled and free from any major "troubles".

Neither British nor Irish, as these concepts have long since been replaced with non nationhood, non national identities.

So these separatists will only begin when the UK physically leave?

Not a great strategy but hey ho!

The normal understanding of colonisation is usually were a large power invades a distant land a distant land to which it had no previous contact and steals its resources.

It's not a 'normal' understanding, it's a handy understanding plucked from your own lack of knowledge.

Where do you see the word 'distant' in this standard meaning of the term?

noun: colonisation

1. the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area."Africa boasts a tradition of higher education institutions that predate Western colonization"
   • the action of appropriating a place or domain for one's own use."the complete colonization of television entertainment by reality shows"
   • Ecologythe action by a plant or animal of establishing itself in an area."lower airway bacterial colonization"

or this one?

col·​o·​ni·​sa·​tion, col·​o·​nise

British spellings of colonization, colonize

1: an act or instance of colonizing: such as a: the establishing of a colony (see colony sense 1) : subjugation of a people or area especially as an extension of state power