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?

12829313334188

Comments

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




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Funny that, we have photos of the British being 'retracted' back to their 'motherland'.

    image.png


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


    exactly francie. You make a really good point. Not only did the Irish retract into a smaller portion of what they saw as theirs, but the British also retracted into a small smaller portion of what they thought was theirs.   So the president is clearly set not just in the British Isles but across the world.  I think you will shortly see both Ukraine and Russia carry out similar exercises.  

    So why would anybody find it unusual that the northern Irish people would do the same?  

    I trust and believe it will never come to that because I don’t believe the people of Northern Ireland will ever vote to join another country, but if they do then we are into a ‘retraction’ scenario

    Call it retraction or call it establishing a new state - It really doesn’t matter, but it is the inevitable outcome. Unless you want to buck history



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You forget again. The 'our wee country' suprematism to the fore again, no doubt.

    There were Irish there too in their homeland, they didn't 'retract' anywhere either, much as you tried.

    You STILL have to tell us how you are going to get majority support for your 'satellite to the motherland'.



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


    Very civilised, the British, in all fairness. They even left the snooker / billiards balls on the table and the green cloth groomed in the army barracks they evacuated. Everything set up for the new administration. Pity civil war erupted between the different republican factions. If only they drew the line at throwing the snooker balls at each other it would not have been so bad, but the Irish civil war between the provisional government of Ireland and the anti-treaty IRA, claimed many lives as we all know. Brother against brother in some cases. Would be nothing compared to the civil war that would erupt in the case of a U.I. of course.

    Of course the photo does not explain some of the British troops forced out were born in Ireland, and it does not show the many innocent people burn out / intimidated / shot / disappeared by Republicans. The British leaving the 26 ( except for the treaty ports ) was an attempt at a compromise, to keep most people reasonably happy on all sides, but of course some Republicans would not compromise and wanted the treaty ports back, the 6 counties etc. As others have said over many decades, feed a crocodile and they keep coming back for more. As they would after a U.I., at cost to us all.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Very civilised, the British, in all fairness

    Great bunch of lads …according to some anyway.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The UWC strikes only emerged in the last two weeks of the Sunningdale executives existence which had been in power since January 1974. The IRA continuing its campaign was a constant destabilising factor. The “it had nothing to do with us” line is a tad naive if you ask me. Whether they were right or wrong, Unionists blamed the executive for the ongoing violence. The IRA had given them a stick to beat it with throughout its existence. The strikes were the final coup de grace.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So the IRA should have stood down because the Unionists, intent on keeping their wee country 'theirs' were giving out about them?

    Seriously, you need to be better at reading/analysing the facts of history.



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


    would you rather call it ‘accepting’ part of what they thought was their country. We will have to do the same in a worst case scenario ie accept a smaller Northern Ireland. But yes, history is on our side.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    How do you get a majority to agree to let you do that?



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Jeez Francie, I wonder why Unionists were “giving out” about the IRA, why Nationalists were “giving out” about Loyalist paramilitaries etc etc….. What is it about SF supporters and the troubles? It’s like arguing with someone who believes in papal infallibility.

    As regards the OP’s question, i’m constitutionally neutral on the whole thing. If NI does or doesn’t exist by then (2125), doesn’t bother me in the slightest tbf.



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


    There wasn't a single thing incorrect in his post. Your analysis is subjective. It is part of the twisted attempt by good republicans to rewrite the actual historical record of things that happened. You are not the only one. Here is Eilis O'Hanlon calling out Gerry Adams for doing the exact same thing - putting a twisted interpretation on history.

    https://www.independent.ie/opinion/eilis-ohanlon-gerry-adams-has-rewritten-my-sisters-story-to-whitewash-the-iras-past/a1775705158.html

    You have been challenged to find a single incorrect fact in the narrative posted by @Randycove

    Try and do that. The fact is that the PIRA had one single ambition: kick out the UK government and create a united Ireland.

    They FAILED in that single ambition. That means they LOST.



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


    Nobody owns a homeland, unless you are the original African tribe, everyone else is an invader.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Iecrawfc


    Even if this was anyway practical(it would need the UK to prop it up for one and nobody in Britain wants that) it only kicks the can down the road, in another 20 years unionists will be a minority in the smaller statelet, what are they going to do retract back again to a smaller area every 20 years?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Nothing to do with party support. More to do with accurate historical commentary.

    Sunningdale was only agreed on 9th Dec 1973. The day after (yes the day after!) this happened:

    Monday 10 December 1973

     Loyalists announced the establishment of the Ulster Army Council (UAC) to resist the proposed Council of Ireland. The UAC was an umbrella group for the main Loyalist paramilitary groups and included the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF).

    then on the 4th of January this happened

    Friday 4 January 1974

     The Ulster Unionist Council (UUC, the policy making body of the Ulster Unionist Party; UUP) met and voted, by 427 votes to 374, to reject the 'Council of Ireland' as proposed in the Sunningdale Agreement.

    The Executive had just started and ALREADY Unionists were reneging on an Agreement.

    Then this happened

    Monday 7 January 1974
     Brian Faulkner, then Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Executive, resigned as leader of Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) after it rejected the Sunningdale Agreement on 4 January 1974.

    then this

    Tuesday 22 January 1974

     Eighteen Loyalist protestors were forcefully removed from the front benches of the Assembly. It took eight Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers to carry Ian Paisley, then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), to steps outside the Assembly building. Harry West succeeded Brian Faulkner as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).

    then this

    Thursday 28 February 1974

    General Election

     A general election was held in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland 30,000 members of the security forces were on duty during the day however there were a number of shooting and bombing incidents across the region.

     The election in Northern Ireland was in effect a referendum on power-sharing, and the Council of Ireland as proposed in the Sunningdale Agreement. There was no electoral pact between the parties in favour of the Executive.

    There was however a very successful pact amongst those opposed to the Sunningdale Agreement who joined forces in the United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC).

    The UUUC was formed by three main Loyalist parties: Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), (Ulster) Vanguard, and Official Unionists (West). These parties agreed to put forward one candidate in each of the constituencies.

    The Campaign slogan of the UUUC was, 'Dublin is just a Sunningdale away'. Candidates standing on behalf of the UUUC won 11 of the 12 Northern Ireland seats, gaining 51.1 per cent of the valid votes.

    The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) held West Belfast. [While the election did not mean an immediate end to the power-sharing Executive, it did provide those opposed to the Sunningdale Agreement with a powerful mandate to continue their opposition to it.]

    then this

    Tuesday 23 April 1974

     The United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC) held a three-day conference in Portrush, County Antrim. The conference was attended by representatives of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and also by Enoch Powell. The main focus of the conference is to agree a strategy for bringing about the end of the Executive. At the end of the conference (26 April 1974) the UUUC called for a Northern Ireland regional parliament in a federal United Kingdom (UK).

    and as we know this:

    Tuesday 14 May 1974

    Beginning of the Ulster Workers Council Strike

     There was a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly on a motion condemning power-sharing and the Council of Ireland. The motion was defeated by 44 votes to 28. At 6.00pm, following the conclusion of the Assembly debate, Harry Murray announced to a group of journalists that a general strike was to start the following day. The organisation named as being responsible for calling the strike was the Ulster Workers' Council (UWC). The action was to become known as the UWC Strike.

    All during this, BOTH sides were killing and maiming each other. Not just ONE side.

    The Unionist/Loyalist bloc including their paramilitary groups took down Sunningdale.



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


    The tiresome rewriting of history rears up again. Let's be clear - the PIRA opposed Sunningdale.

    No amount of pontification, obfuscation and bluster will change that fact. They worked to bring down Sunningdale.

    It was their leaders that Mallon was referring to when he talked about Sunningdale for slow learners.

    If you want to keep claiming that unionists were solely responsible for collapsing Sunningdale, you will have to simultaneously concede that this was another example of how the PIRA repeatedly failed to achieve its objectives.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    “All during this, BOTH sides were killing and maiming each other. Not just ONE side.”

    So you’re saying then that the continuance of the IRA campaign, among others, DID play a role in helping to bring down Sunningdale?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady



    Presented with the factual, uncontested history, you dig a bit deeper.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Paramilitaries can bring down nothing if the will is there among politicians - if politicians live up to agreements they have made.

    In the case of Sunningdale - 'politicians' with the assistance of paramilitaries brought down Sunningdale. It's there in the facts of history.

    That was the difference when the GFA came around. Why, because Unionism/Loyalism had been so weakened and divided they couldn't and boy did they try.



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


    Nobody is denying that unionist politicians played a part in bringing down Sunningdale. However, that the PIRA was largely responsible for creating the conditions that led to Sunningdale failing is undoubtedly true.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    “Unionism/Loyalism had been so weakened and divided they couldn't and boy did they try.”

    Seriously? I asked you last night to read the “constitutional issues” section of the GFA. Well did you? You can attempt to whitewash, re-write the history of the troubles etc, but the basic fact of the GFA is that there can be no change to the status of NI without the consent of the majority there. If you voted yes, that’s what you accepted. Nationalism/Republicanism moved towards and eventually accepted the British position on this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    From Carson to Gavin Robinson/Jim McAllister you have had Unionist leaders who have engaged with illegal paramilitary forces to bring down and try to bring down any agreements that sees them lose suprematist control of 'their wee country'.

    As soon as an agreement they couldn't bring down (because the British finally removed their veto (See John Hume essay on that posted earlier) was reached, the IRA went away and engaged in 'exclusively peaceful means'.

    The 'condition' in 1973/74 was that the Unionism/Loyalism was not ready to share power or to be democrats. Some of them still aren't as we have seen here. If a democratic border poll votes for a UI they will look to establish a 'satellite to the motherland' rather than accept the will of the majority.



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


    None of that addresses my statement. To remind you I said:

    "Nobody is denying that unionist politicians played a part in bringing down Sunningdale. However, that the PIRA was largely responsible for creating the conditions that led to Sunningdale failing is undoubtedly true."

    Your response isn't contradictory at all, in fact, all you have done is provide support and corroboration for my statement. Now, if you want to argue that loyalist paramilitaries were hugely effective in achieving their objectives while the PIRA abysmally failed to achieve theirs, then you might be able to back up your conclusions about Sunningdale.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    All the violence blanch not just that by any one side.

    ALL of it from the start was responsible for the conflict/war which Unionist suprematist intransigence backed by a British bulldog imperialism caused.

    Your 'statements' are not oracles. It is just your myopic, look over there jaundiced opinion. Rather than face facts you will back that belligerent Unionist opinion that still exists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Just for my curious mind.

    What do the Unionists and partitionists here think would have happened had the '73 Border Poll gone the other way?



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


    You might as well ask what we think would have happened if the Nazis won WW2.

    The poll went the way it did. A clear majority of the people expressed their wishes to remain in the UK. That is fact.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Surely if you posit a view that the IRA should have stopped, you have considered what would have happened if they did?

    You have thought about that yeh?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,220 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    If we take a look at the UWC's reasons for striking in opposition to the Sunningdale Agreement, or the formation of the Ulster Army Council, you'll see an awful lot about not wanting Ireland to have a single iota of influence over NI and a lot less about the PIRA.

    I know you like to blame the Provos when your milk goes sour before it's best before date, but arguably Hugh Logue of the SDLP had more direct influence on bringing down the Sunningdale Agreement than the PIRA could have possibly had.

    It's curious that you would push the, 'PIRA were responsible for the conditions' talk, but are very resistant to discussing who was responsible for the conditions that led to the PIRA in the first place, or worse; try to equivocate understanding the conditions that led to the PIRA as any sort of support for them.

    Ultimately, despite all the equivocation and, 'but themmuns', in reality Nationalist representation was still at the table with Sunningdale, Unionist representation wasn't, so yes....they are responsible for it's failure.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,265 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It's curious that you would push the, 'PIRA were responsible for the conditions' talk, but are very resistant to discussing who was responsible for the conditions that led to the PIRA in the first place, or worse; try to equivocate understanding

    the conditions that led to the PIRA as any sort of support for them.

    They cannot go there because they would have to admit the IRA were a symptom of the conflict/war caused by a wholly wrong partition and Unionist one party rule for the 50 years after it, not the cause.
    They'll ally with those remaining belligerent Unionists to ensure partition continues.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    By the GFA there is no more gerrymandering. If a border poll passes its over. And you're very deluded if you think london even wants to facility your fantasy of creating a new NI boundary line to keep a part of Ireland.

    London's descion to put a hard border in the irish sea after brexit not bring it home how much London cares about unionists.



Advertisement
Advertisement