Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Northern Ireland 2125?

Options
11213151718188

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The future arrangements post-border poll are unknown. They may well include a veto arrangement for Northern Ireland on certain issues, you don't know, I don't know.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,331 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady




    Nobody will have a veto on a UI happening post a border poll that returns Yes votes in both jurisdictions.

    That is what we were discussing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Commonwealth could be described as something oldfashioned or not, it's not that important for the ROI to re join the Commonwealth ( maybe only to appease unionists), but even if it's to re-unite the island one should bear in mind that the role of the Governor General would be chosen by the Irish government, - not in the UK, not in Westminster.

    The monarch may visit Hillsborough castle every now and then, same as Rideau Hall in Canada or other palces.

    The country would have the same status as Australia, NZ or Canada.

    Just to clarify any misunderstanding — Ireland joining the Commonwealth would not entail the appointment of a Governor General. Only Commonwealth realms have a Governor-General — countries which are not only Commonwealth member statess but also monarchies, having as their monarch whoever is the monarch of the UK. A Governor-General represents the monarch in each of the Commonwealth realms (except the UK, obviously).

    Of the 56 Commonwealth member states, only 15 are Commonwealth realms (and one of those is the UK itself). One member state (Tonga) is a monarchy that has its own monarch. The remaining 40 member states are republics. Since the death of the last Queen three of the existing Commonwealth realms (Jamaica, the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda) have announced plans to hold referendums on whether to become republics. No Commonwealth member state has ever transitioned in the other direction, so the number of Commonwealth realms is likely to decline further over time.

    Ireland joining the Commonwealth would not be like Australia, NZ or Canada, which are monarchies; it would be like India, Singapore, Nigeria or Malta, all of which are republics. The head of state would remain the President; there would be no Governor-General. The crown has no role in Commonwealth member states that are not Commonwealth realms, and does not need a representative in those states.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    absolutely not equating the scale. That would be ridiculous, but I am pointing out that, whether you like it or not, the Irish establishment is our No1 enemy. It tries to screw us at every opportunity - brexit being the most recent, but also assisting the IRA, etc right through to more Bennie stuff like funding Casement but not Windsor etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    I was referring mainly to the sectarian murders that Ira and u f carried out.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,577 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    It was ridiculous as is your hyperbolic "our No1 enemy".

    I think it's time you came into the 21st century and left your bitterness behind you, in the past, where it belongs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,331 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    If Unionism thinks playing 'we're the only victim/everyone is out to get us' cards is going to get them far outside of their own base, then that is a sign they have not learned the lessons about where disastrous no-win strategies get them to.

    Brexit and the self inflicted disaster for Unionism of a sea border/Protocol, being a case in point and with honourable mention for the Anglo Irish Agreement and The GFA itself.

    'Never Never Never' but it happened anyway.

    When will it realise it is no longer acceptable to dig the heels in and try to use non existent veto's?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    until they admit their part in the murder and displacement of our people, it is difficult to move on in that perception.
    do you think the Irish republic should admit their part in it?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    How did the Irish government try to screw NI on Brexit exactly? I noticed you completely ignored my point on this earlier in the thread.

    Did you want a hard Brexit with a hard border? If so, you don't realise how detrimental that would be to NI? Do you understand how much cross border movement of people and goods, especially agricultural produced, there is?

    The Irish government worked hard to ensure NI found itself in a unique position, straddling two economic blocks with little friction.

    Unionism has seen fit to hold everything up for years and has actively discouraged NI benefitting this unique set of circumstances.

    As for the rest of your post, the same could be said for Westminster and Stormont over the years. The difference is, it seems the Irish population and nationalist population of the north have by and large moved beyond it as they can see the benefits and potential prosperity in more peaceful times.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It is ironic that the final outcome from Brexit is opposed by unionists and supported by nationalists when if it works as designs, it creates the biggest economic argument in favour of keeping Northern Ireland as it is.

    If the access to both markets continues, especially in a time of tariffs everywhere you look, the unique position of Northern Ireland is a distinct advantage economically, and could significantly boost FDI over the next two decades, bringing greater prosperity to Northern Ireland, incentivising the status quo, making a united Ireland a further distant dream, all thanks to an idea for solving Brexit that MLMD supporters on here have claimed was dreamt up by SF.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Wait, you're blaming Ireland for NI getting screwed by Brexit?

    That's delusional — Stockholm syndrome level delusional.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,331 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    For a while the prospects for the Irish people on this island were deeply bleak. We were faced with the prospect of a hard border on the island again and all the trade, customs issues a hard Brexit would bring.
    Dublin protected the interests of the Irish = simple as that. Nothing against those identifying as British or Unionists. It was a battle and we did what had to be done.

    The UK did exactly the same thing, protected the interests of the Great British people, tried to throw the Irish people under a bus and failing to do that, threw those identifying as British under a bus to get the best they could salvage from the flames.

    Yet it's the Irish @downcow blames. 🙄



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,219 ✭✭✭itsacoolday


    Correct, elements in various Irish governments were always hostile to the Unionists in N. Ireland. Think of the arms Trial, and so much went on in setting up the pIRA and allowing attacks in to N. Ireland, with Republicans using bases south of the border as a safe haven, for training etc.

    From 1973-97 the UK sought the extradition of 110 republican suspects from the Irish Republic, but only 42 were arrested and only eight were extradited. There have been some decent politicians in the Irish government over the decades but some have wanted to screw the unionists at every opportunity. It is is quite obvious in a U.I. they would be out. Even at school we were taught one side was good and one side was bad, no parity of esteem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    I see francie still can’t fathom us being British. We are ‘identifying’ as British.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    IMG_0277.jpeg

    NI continues as important defence region in uk



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    That is another whole debate, and I think you will find another thread that has done it to death.

    One example of how they tried to screw us was your prime minister standing up in Europe holding photographs of bombed border stations, the very clear implication being that this is what will happen if you try to implement a full Brexit. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    To be fair, you're only British because you identify as British; if you didn't, you wouldn't be British. So this is maybe a distinction without a difference.

    Plus, identification is the language used in the GFA, the international instrument that guarantees your rights. It affirms your right (a) to identify as British (or Irish, or both), and (b) to be accepted as British (or Irish, or both, in accordance with your identification) by both governments.

    So, yeah, identification as British is the fundamental thing here.

    Let me fix that for you:

    " . . . the very clear implication being that this is what could happen if you try to implement a Brexit that requires the reimposition of border controls in Ireland".

    Somebody saying that is not trying to screw you; he is trying to protect you from your your so-called "friends" in Britain who are completely indifferent to your safety and welfare and would sell you in a heartbeat, and from their useful idiot lickspittles in Dundela Avenue.

    I get that, as a unionist, you would rather be protected by the British. But, to be blunt, beggars can't be choosers; you should take whatever protection you can get (and postpone to another day the stressful task of reflecting on the implications of an Irish government caring more about you than a British government does). And you certainly can't blame Varadkar for the failure of the British to care about you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,331 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Really have to laugh at this crib.

    Soon as talk of a British border was to be placed in the Irish Sea Unionist/Loyalists were threatening violence against infrastructure and officials.

    Of course they didn't have the wherewithal to follow through, as we knew, but the same is not true of dissidents on the other side.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 690 ✭✭✭michael-henry-mcivor


    How were attacks allowed-

    Thousands of brit army soldiers used to protect / patrol the border and had armed checkpoints / bases on the border- if IRA attacks were allowed then those Thousands of brit soldiers / brit government had to be in on it-?- U can't have it both ways-



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,331 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Well, in fairness this sentence wouldn't have made any sense had I not distinguished who I was talking about. See below.

    The UK did exactly the same thing, protected the interests of the Great British people, tried to throw the Irish people under a bus and failing to do that, threw those identifying as British the British under a bus to get the best they could salvage from the flames.

    The UK protected a distinct set of people by placing their border in the Irish Sea - the citizens of Great Britain. Isn't that the gripe you have with them? They separated you from the UK.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    so you are telling us francie is not Irish, he’s just identifying as such.
    you should also check the legal position. Everyone born in ni is British until they officially denounce their British citizenship - which a tiny number have done. They are also free to choose Irish citizenship



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    You could quite easily have said the British living in ni - it was only bitterness prevented you.
    are you suggesting there are millions in Isreal identifying as Palestinian?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Individuals born in Northern Ireland are British by birth, that is the law in that jurisdiction.

    They can choose to identify as Irish, also allowed by law.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That’s not an answer to anything I actually said.
    A sidestep and single anecdote about the Taoiseach around doesn’t explain:

    1. Why NI’s dual-market access isn’t an advantage.
    2. Why Unionism is blocking the ability to benefit from it.
    3. Why Irish/nationalist communities are moving forward while Stormont is stuck.

    If you’re claiming the protocol “screwed” NI, then show exactly how it outweighs those benefits, otherwise it looks like you’re avoiding the facts because they don’t fit your argument.

    As an aside, I grew up on the border in Derry and remember it well. A hard border, whether you want to admit this or not, would require border points as a result of international legal requirements.

    You are simply ignoring any factual points made and responding with emotional anecdotes. I have watched you on these forums for years and you are simply blinded by spite or something else and completely unwilling to engage in good faith debate, all Irish and Nationalist politicians are not to be trusted and are out to destroy unionism as far as you're concerned.

    This is Unionism in a nutshell, thankfully the younger generation of Unionists seem to be becoming more open to discussion and debate.

    Tell me this, if the protocol really “screwed” NI, then why do we now have unique, frictionless access to both the UK and EU markets and how is that not an economic advantage?

    Sammy Wilson seems to think it's something to promote.

    https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1935656412585283679



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,331 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    the British living in ni

    Not quite, because that could refer to somebody from Birmingham or Edinburgh living in NI who wouldn’t care where the border was.

    There was a distinction made by the British when they chose the site of the Sea Border.

    You cannot seriously deny that is core to Unionist/Loyalist objections?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,431 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    so you are telling us francie is not Irish, he’s just identifying as such.

    No, the opposite. Francie is Irish and he identifies as Irish. These are not inconsistent; in fact they usually go together. In NI in particular, how you identify is foundational, because the GFA makes it so.

    you should also check the legal position. Everyone born in ni is British until they officially denounce their British citizenship - which a tiny number have done. They are also free to choose Irish citizenship

    (Almost) everyone born in NI is a British citizen unless and until they renounce British citizenship. But the GFA distinguishes between being British (or Irish) and holding British (or Irish) citizenship; they are not the same thing, and you can do one without the other.

    It works like this:

    1. It is "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland" to identify themselves as British or Irish or both.
    2. It is also their birthright to have their identification accepted.
    3. Because they have those rights, the British and Irish governments both confirm that they can hold both British and Irish citizenship.

    So, it's not the case that, for the people of Northern Ireland, having British citizenship make them British. It works the other way around; they have a right to identify as British and that identity must be accepted and, because their British identity is accepted, they have a right to British citizenship.

    The point is, it all starts with identification. If you identify as British, then all the rest follows. (And similarly if you identify as Irish.)

    (UK law confers British citizenship on most people born in NI by default, regardless of how they identify. That goes further than the GFA requires, obviously, which only confers a right to British citizenship in connection with identifying as British. But it's not inconsistent with the GFA; if you give everybody British citizenship by default, then obviously for those who have a right to British citizenship under the GFA, their right is being vindicated; they have British citizenship.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    How do you know that somebody from Birmingham or Edinburgh living in NI wouldn't care where the border was. Are you projecting your own prejudices onto others?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,331 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I don’t. I base it on not seeing huge if any objections from Birmingham or Edinburgh.



Advertisement
Advertisement