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?

13031333536188

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    "they weren't dealing with a threat from the IRA by the way"

    Are you trying to tell me that the violence of the IRA, or any other paramilitary organisation for that matter, was never a 'threat' regardless of the timing?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The threat of Direct Rule and having to share power was NOT coming from the IRA.



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


    could you tell me what compromise the British made?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Any organisation engaged in violence 24/7 is a threat 24/7. If you’re on the field of play (which the IRA & others were) you’re influencing events.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Signing an internationally binding agreement giving another sovereign entity a say in the running of NI was a massive compromise and achievement.

    We saw the outworking of that when the British yet again tried to run NI from a selfish point of view…they couldn't because they compromised that ability in the GFA which they dared not break, as we know.

    Removing the hard border infrastructure was another
    Accepting the legitimacy of Irish unity aspirations and the Irish identity another
    To phase out the British military presence another.

    Allowing all to the table.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So you reckon Unionism, which had an artificial majority created for them and who gerrymandered to create a one party state for +50 yrs and who have still not accepted power sharing fully, would have accepted power sharing if there had been peace in '74?



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


    Let’s take that one point at a time:

    Exactly how did the British give ROI any authority in running Northern Ireland?

    Tell me how the British tried to run Northern Ireland from a selfish point of view and how the agreement blocked that?

    And as for this final little list of yours:

    “Removing the hard border infrastructure was another

    Accepting the legitimacy of Irish unity aspirations and the Irish identity another 

    To phase out the British military presence another.”

    The infrastructure was only there because of the IRA, you think the British compromised to remove it once the IRA surrendered?

    I don’t think there is a single person on this planet ever question the legitimacy of Irish unity aspirations - do you?

    There phase out of British military presence- and again there was only military on the streets because of the IRA, so again why would they keep them there after the IRA surrender?  I understand there are approximately 3000 British military currently serving in Northern Ireland (I stand to be corrected on that if I’m mistaken).

    So I still don’t see a single compromise made by the British across the water.  The massive compromise by the British and Irish living in Northern Ireland was the release of terrorists and criminals who had not served their entire time.  



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So you’re saying then that the ‘solution’ to Unionist intransigence in 1974 was more violence from the other side?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Let’s take that one point at a time:

    Exactly how did the British give ROI any authority in running Northern Ireland?

    Tell me how the British tried to run Northern Ireland from a selfish point of view and how the agreement blocked that?

    I see you have learned the altering what I said trick.
    I didn't say 'authority', I said 'a say' via different mechanisms in the GFA.

    The British agreed to an open border on the island of Ireland in the GFA, and Dublin simply would not allow them put one there again. We said no thank you and the British shafted Unionism., as you know


    *The military was sent into to protect Catholic's in Derry and we all know how that ended.

    *The GFA was agreed by the Irish and British governments, not the IRA and the British government.

    The Irish asked and they got those commitments/compromises.
    The aspiration stuff was important to a people treated as 2nd class citizens to have written down and enshrined.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    No. Certainly caused more, ask the citizens of Dublin and Monaghan and Belturbet for starters.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    All appalling events. So what in your view would have moved the situation forward in 1974?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The British facing down Unionism which they eventually did and should have done decades earlier.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So if the British faced down Unionism in 1974, it’s reasonable to assume then that the IRA & others should have ended their campaigns at the same time?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Again, you don't quite get it.

    Unionism accepted the Anglo Irish Agreement grudgingly and loyalist paramilitary groups increased their violence. But they were sufficiently weakened at that stage to not be able to collapse the AIA and the GFA followed, albeit slowly.
    Had the British faced down Unionism then, I don't think the violence would have stopped immediately, indeed it might have gotten worse but I believe it all would have been over sooner saving many many lives in the process.



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


    I put the word authority in on purpose because you were using such a subjective term like ‘a say’.   Tell me one thing that ROI has the authority to implement in Northern Ireland - it can be about dogs pooping on pavements if you like.  

    The rest of what you write is also total nonsense. There is no substance to anything.  

    I can’t believe you humiliate yourselves so much to say that it meant so much to you that the British acknowledged your aspiration for unity 🤣.  My goodness, what would Bobby Sands say.  Why would you care what the British think?   I couldn’t give a toss if every Irish person on this island refused to acknowledge my aspiration to have Northern Ireland as a separate entity.   We don’t need aspirations we will ensure it’s reality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Re; Authority. I am not wastig my time dealing with stuff I never said. Put the big trousers on and accept that partition and the Agreement the British signed because of it came back to royally bite them and Unionism on the ass.

    *I never mentioned my aspiration either, there is nothing the British can do about that. The Irish people living in NI.
    I know you don't want to understand that, but who exactly cares what you think about that?

    Work away on creating your reality.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I actually don’t get what your saying at all tbh. Combined with your scepticism about a peace strategy dealing with Unionism in 1974 are you suggesting that the lack of a move by the British to face down Unionism at the time was a genuine casus belli for the IRA to keep going?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I don’t speak for the IRA.

    What I know is they saw the British and Unionism/Loyalism as part of the same problem.

    The British eventually rired of Unionism as we know and that weakened them. They really need to face up to that but they probably won’t no matter how many times the British show them they don’t care about anyone on this island ultimately. They don’t care about many on their own island either but that’s another story.



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


    The GFA is a peace agreement between the UK and the ROI. The GFA is the background to how the state of NI operates. It cant be changed without the ROI consent.

    ALso by GFA agreement if stormont collapses and it twice fails to form government after an election it is to direct rule from London with dublin input.

    "In March 2019, Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove[6] said that in the event of no deal the UK government would “start formal engagement with the Irish government about further arrangements for providing strengthened decision making” in Northern Ireland"



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


    The British do show they care about people on this island because they pay many more billions in to N.I. each and every year than they take in taxes. They also paid in blood with the lives of many of their innocent civilians, security forces and politicians. They also were our best friends and supporters when we were in the EEC / EU together and we needed support.

    Does our government care about N.I. unionists? We know the answer to that, even as recently as the funding of Casement Park for example. And during the troubles N.I. unionists were, shall we say suspicious of our government for good reason often. Our own politicians have neglected some of our own citizens too, but that is another story.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    If the British cared, why did they lie to Unionists and put the border in the Irish Sea and caused the biggest existential crisis for Unionists since the GFA which was the biggest existential crisis for Unionists since the Anglo Irish Agreement?

    Leo Varadkar is not the answer. You have to face up to it or Unionism will die out altogether. Unionists I believe know this but their political leaders pretend or fool themselves it is salvageable. It ain’t. The British are gone existentially and tgey aren’t coming back. Unionism shat in the nest once too often



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


    The British did care, but they were blackmailed , as someone else said, by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar in 2018 when he presented EU leaders with a copy of an Irish newspaper featuring a large photo of a border post extensively bombed, during a dinner in Brussels, and he promised them many more such bombings if the EU had a hard border with the UK in N. Ireland. Many of the previous large bombs exploded in N.Ireland were assembled in the Republic, so no idle threat. Varadkar also got Biden to put pressure on the British.

    Not saying the British were perfect, far from it, but some stupid decisions were made, and their governments in the past while have often been poor.  

    The British would not have had an internal border unless they were blackmailed - after all, it is costing the British hundreds of millions.



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


    Wow spectacularly bad interpretation of the situation, Varadkar blackmailing the poor Uk with EU and US collusion! Putin is in the ha'penny place compared to him!



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


    a massive and transparent deflection.
    the question was ‘what were the British compromise in return for IRA surrender’, you have give us nothing but Wolly words, because there is nothing.



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


    well that is a Great report and I would encourage frances to read it.  You pull pull out a line completely out of context, but here is a phrase from within it which really does sum up the situation with real clarity - how could it be classed as anything other than a complete surrender for the IRA? You could only call that a defeat for unionism, if Carlsberg does defeats!

    What would be the role of the Irish government?

    The Irish government has no constitutional role in direct rule. However, the Good Friday Agreement recognises the Irish government’s “special interest” in Northern Ireland, and contains arrangements for the Irish government to put forward view and proposals on non-devolved matters through the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference



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


    francie again telling my community we are gone. “The British are gone existentially and they aren’t coming back” he really does live in a fantasy world



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


    IMG_0365.jpeg

    I thought this was very interesting and worth sharing. It just popped up on my Facebook feed on this from an international site that shows infographics to explain worldwide stats.  

    So many on here claim I am some sort of a strange being, with my identity, but it’s interesting that I fit into the largest identity in Northern Ireland. It also demonstrates the huge hurdle Republicans have as the Irish only group continues to shrink.  

    Francie often says how am I going to convince people that Northern Ireland should be separate – from this graphic I don’t appear to have any convincing to do. It is his mates that have the challenge on their hands.



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


    You are now down to 30% who believe that their identity is anything to do with Ireland 😮



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


    I reckon it could take another generation for Republicans to realise that the dream is over – it is never going to happen.
    to use frances phrase, it is clear that now over 60% of the people living in Northern Ireland are partitionists



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,267 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You are where you are now because the British compromised and compromised themselves in the GFA.

    The GFA ensured that GB was sovereign but the UK wasn't.

    GB could leave the EU but because the UK signed the GFA- it couldn't fully leave it.

    Nothing 'woolly' about that, ask Allister, Bryson, Robinson etc.



Advertisement
Advertisement