Northern Ireland.. Whats the big deal?

flangdiddy · 21-03-2009 03:28PM #1

I know theres a lot of history there, but what are they fighting for?
No offense to NI, but i visited the other day, and its certainly not worth 100 years of sweat!

I mean Dublin's much larger than Belfast, Cork's not even far behind,

I don't even think the Irish government would have the money to be in control of all those extra schools and hospitals etc

..Not that i agree with it being part of Britain either, I guess it should be a state in its own right or they should have a vote on what country it should be part of? (that would be true democracy). And then all the people who didn't get the result they wanted would just have to: a. get over it or b. move.

We all know it used to be part of Ireland, but many countries used to be part of one another (many of them a lot more recently than EIRE and NI, and they've gotten over it!)

Im not going to get into the divide between catholics and protestants because that is just wrong, they differ on such small matters.. certainly not worth a war anyways. Also, it seems a bit weird that Christians treat Muslims better than Christians treat each other because of these denominations of one faith

Whats wrong with us lads? Were making fools of ourselves
or should I say theyre making fools of us..

RIP all those who have died over something so silly as a flag or a border

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-03-2009 03:33PM

Said it before, say it again: it's like two bald men fighting over a comb.

Peyton Manning · 21-03-2009 03:33PM

The majority of people Ive spoken to up here see the futility of it all. In 20-30 years time, nobody will give a toss anymore. Heck, most sensible people dont give a toss now.

markok84 · 21-03-2009 03:37PM

flangdiddy wrote: »

..Not that i agree with it being part of Britain either,

It's not part of britain, it's part of the UK.

Mr.Lizard · 21-03-2009 03:39PM

Just as as there doesn't come a day where we're fighting the Brit's again for ownership of the North.

"You keep it!"
"No, you keep it!"

Snowie · 21-03-2009 03:45PM

could Ireland afford to support Northern Ireland.... If we did have the run off it...?

philologos · 21-03-2009 03:45PM

flangdiddy wrote: »

..Not that i agree with it being part of Britain either, I guess it should be a state in its own right or they should have a vote on what country it should be part of? (that would be true democracy). And then all the people who didn't get the result they wanted would just have to: a. get over it or b. move.

Why don't you agree with it being a part of the UK if the majority of people want it to be a part of the UK? I think it's their choice and their choice alone.

flangdiddy wrote: »

We all know it used to be part of Ireland, but many countries used to be part of one another (many of them a lot more recently than EIRE and NI, and they've gotten over it!)

Indeed, it would be like the Germans trying to get back Alsace Lorraine, or the French wanting the Saarland or Austria demanding South Tirol from Italy. There are cases such as Kosovo where things can get rather bitter though, it's not always an easy transition for people to make.

flangdiddy wrote: »

Im not going to get into the divide between catholics and protestants because that is just wrong, they differ on such small matters.. certainly not worth a war anyways. Also, it seems a bit weird that Christians treat Muslims better than Christians treat each other because of these denominations of one faith

I've always seen Northern Ireland as being a political issue to which faith was attached. Just look at what has happened in the last 100 years to Protestants living in the Republic of Ireland. Most of them have settled and settled rather well with the idea of living in the Irish Republic, whereas 100 years ago many if not a majority would have supported the union with Britain.

As for Christians and Muslims, I don't think that's entirely true in reality here. Also, Muslims have their own denominational beef between Sunni and Shi'a Islam in particular. Just look at Iraq and the amount of infighting between them. They are in a situation just like in Northern Ireland, probably much worse actually.

flangdiddy wrote: »

Whats wrong with us lads? Were making fools of ourselves
or should I say theyre making fools of us..

Well if they are in a different country surely they aren't making fools of people in the Republic?

flangdiddy wrote: »

RIP all those who have died over something so silly as a flag or a border

Amen to that.

CSC · 21-03-2009 04:02PM

Archimedes wrote: »

The majority of people Ive spoken to up here see the futility of it all. In 20-30 years time, nobody will give a toss anymore. Heck, most sensible people dont give a toss now.

I doubt there will be a time when nobody gives a toss. You will always have a section (small I admit) of society wanting the north back.

Ardscoil Ris · 21-03-2009 04:07PM

Pfff they can keep it.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 21-03-2009 04:10PM

flangdiddy wrote: »

We all know it used to be part of Ireland, but many countries used to be part of one another (many of them a lot more recently than EIRE and NI, and they've gotten over it!)

Its STILL part of Ireland.

We're a devided island nation surrounded by water, we've never been physically part of the UK.

Is it worth killing for, no its not - at least not in my opinion.

Is it worth dying for, absolutely it is.

Thankfully we've entered into a peaceful and democratic process now, and please god the armed struggle will be consigned to history.

Zillah · 21-03-2009 04:12PM

I think Northern Ireland should join the Republic for purely aesthetic reasons. Looks weird on the map.

Also, re paying for schools etc, if they joined the republic then they'd also be paying taxes to the Irish goverment.

Ardscoil Ris · 21-03-2009 04:19PM

Zillah wrote: »

I think Northern Ireland should join the Republic for purely aesthetic reasons. Looks weird on the map.

Also, re paying for schools etc, if they joined the republic then they'd also be paying taxes to the Irish goverment.

It's estimated that NI costs the UK 50 million a day. They place is a drain. They would give it back to us with a massive smile on their face if they could, but we would collapse if it came under our control.

What industry is up there?

What natural resources is up there?

Zillah · 21-03-2009 04:23PM

I have a modest proposal on how we can turn a profit from the people of Northern Ireland.

Ardscoil Ris · 21-03-2009 04:30PM

Zillah wrote: »

I have a modest proposal on how we can turn a profit from the people of Northern Ireland.

Please share it with us so. :cool:

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 04:35PM

I think its quite arrogant to say only those who don't give a sh*t about the Irish in the North of Ireland(yes believe it or not the Irish nation doesn't stop at the border) are the 'sensible' ones. You may not give a toss, but there are plenty of people on this island who do and will always give a toss, and have done so for hundreds of years, that won't change in the next 20-30 years. As Mairt says Ireland is a divided nation, which was partitioned by a foreign state. Does anyone honestly think that if the Irish government thought there was no chance of the North becoming part of the republic they'd be pumping €2bln into the North as part of the NDP, or even Fianna Fáil organising in the North for elections there in a few years?

Also the people who argue we couldn't afford the North, thats not necessarily true. It doesn't make sense for 1.5m to join a country and not pay taxes...so taxes they would've been paying to London would be going to Dublin which would help pay for the public services in the North, and by then the idea is they would've sorted their finances out to have become more efficient than they are now which is London's fault and an example of how direct rule from London doesn't work. Also the whole point of investing in the North now is to avoid an East Germany situation when any referendum does come about, whereby if a majority do vote Yes to joining the ROI in say 20 years time that their infrastructure will have been built up enough that we won't be starting from scratch.

Also to the same people who argue it will make us broke, Irish unity will actually benefit our economy not damage it, why do you think so many businesses are trying to promote the all-island economy? Partition does nothing for the island's economy and has simply limited the potential growth of the island as a whole and will continue to do so until its removed.

Right now you can't have any debate on what way the North should go because any debate would turn into a green and orange arguement. Hopefully in 15-20 years time when a real democracy exists in the North and parties can discuss the pros and cons of joining the republic and look at the facts of how it would benefit both sides of the border without bringing religion into it, that Unionists will see the merits of a United Ireland and opt to support it.

If it ever does happen though, it will be a different Ireland to today. Most likely it'll be a federal republic like Germany and the US with each province having it's own level of autonomy, otherwise known as Éire Nua - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire_Nua.

pablomakaveli · 21-03-2009 04:48PM

I'm against a united Ireland. I don't really see any benefit to it anymore. A lot of people i talk to about the subject are against reunification or don't care either way.

I can see Northern Ireland becoming an independent state on it's own in the future. I reckon the barriers between the Unionist and Nationalist communities will break down over the next generation or two which will probably see them adopt a mentality of being "Northern Irish" rather than being "Irish" or "British". If that is the case a united Ireland won't be necessary anymore.

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 04:53PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, it would be like the Germans trying to get back Alsace Lorraine, or the French wanting the Saarland or Austria demanding South Tirol from Italy. There are cases such as Kosovo where things can get rather bitter though, it's not always an easy transition for people to make.

You can't compare the north to those areas which have changed hands between nations many times. On top of that there are also numerous other factors involved in it such as the manner of the creation of the NI state and the treatment of the nationalist community after it.

philologos · 21-03-2009 04:58PM

Jim236 wrote: »

I think its quite arrogant to say only those who don't give a sh*t about the Irish in the North of Ireland(yes believe it or not the Irish nation doesn't stop at the border) are the 'sensible' ones. You may not give a toss, but there are plenty of people on this island who do and will always give a toss, and have done so for hundreds of years, that won't change in the next 20-30 years. As Mairt says Ireland is a divided nation, which was partitioned by a foreign state. Does anyone honestly think that if the Irish government thought there was no chance of the North becoming part of the republic they'd be pumping €2bln into the North as part of the NDP, or even Fianna Fáil organising in the North for elections there in a few years?

Politically we have to deal with the reality that Northern Ireland is in a separate jurisdiction and is a full part of the United Kingdom. That's how they want it, and that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future no doubt. I personally don't think it will be ultimately up to the people in the Republic to decide, but rather the people in the North. That's why actions such as the recent shootings in Northern Ireland are pretty much abhorrent, a very small minority using violence to impose their own political view on a majority.

Jim236 wrote: »

Also the people who argue we couldn't afford the North, thats not necessarily true. It doesn't make sense for 1.5m to join a country and not pay taxes...

Surely it's more of a question as to whether or not it is worth affording the North or to continue as we are?

Jim236 wrote: »

so taxes they would've been paying to London would be going to Dublin which would help pay for the public services in the North, and by then the idea is they would've sorted their finances out to have become more efficient than they are now which is London's fault and an example of how direct rule from London doesn't work. Also the whole point of investing in the North now is to avoid an East Germany situation when any referendum does come about, whereby if a majority do vote Yes to joining the ROI in say 20 years time that their infrastructure will have been built up enough that we won't be starting from scratch.

Why is it London's fault I don't get this exactly? You'd need to prove that the vast majority of NI funds don't stay in Northern Ireland, which I think is false for a start, I'm pretty sure the UK are putting in other tax funds raised in Britain to sustain the North as well. So it isn't that the UK are depriving Northern Ireland of funds by any means, but rather that the UK is putting more funds in.

As for your point on the referendum, I think that is very much conditional. It's a big if, there is no certainty that this will ever happen. 20 years time is a bit too optimistic I think, and if there was a reunification it really should be in phases rather than the whole lot at once.

Jim236 wrote: »

Also to the same people who argue it will make us broke, Irish unity will actually benefit our economy not damage it, why do you think so many businesses are trying to promote the all-island economy? Partition does nothing for the island's economy and has simply limited the potential growth of the island as a whole and will continue to do so until its removed.

How do you prove that this is the case that it is certain that if Ireland was politically one that the economy would be great.

Jim236 wrote: »

Right now you can't have any debate on what way the North should go because any debate would turn into a green and orange arguement.

Really? Sure there are avid folks on both sides, but I think most people are happy enough with the current arrangement. If there is evidence to the contrary surely that is when we should start talking about a united Ireland.

Jim236 wrote: »

Hopefully in 15-20 years time when a real democracy exists in the North and parties can discuss the pros and cons of joining the republic and look at the facts of how it would benefit both sides of the border without bringing religion into it, that Unionists will see the merits of a United Ireland and opt to support it.

Who are you to say that the Assembly and Westminster aren't a real democracy? For the Unionists it's more than merit that is being counted, it's their cultural identity moreso. As for your point on religion, I think you are right. Most of the Republic's 5% Protestant population are quite happy with the arrangement we have down here.

Jim236 wrote: »

If it ever does happen though, it will be a different Ireland to today. Most likely it'll be a federal republic like Germany and the US with each province having it's own level of autonomy, otherwise known as Éire Nua - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire_Nua.

Federalism is probably the best model for anywhere really with political division, like on the scale we have currently in Ireland as an island.

Zillah · 21-03-2009 04:58PM

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

Please share it with us so. :cool:

Some clever person will get it eventually.

philologos · 21-03-2009 05:02PM

fingerbob wrote: »

You can't compare the north to those areas which have changed hands between nations many times. On top of that there are also numerous other factors involved in it such as the manner of the creation of the NI state and the treatment of the nationalist community after it.

Fair enough but there are a lot of ethnic Germans in both South Tirol and in Alsace Lorraine and yet they are still happy to continue residing in the countries they currently live in for the most part?

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 05:14PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough but there are a lot of ethnic Germans in both South Tirol and in Alsace Lorraine and yet they are still happy to continue residing in the countries they currently live in for the most part?

I'm not sure how the situation is there, but with the treatment that the catholic/nationalist community received from a "protestant government for a protestant people", you could say it would give them the ground to not want to be a part of that state. Although you could also say alot has changed nowadays but I'm guessing (maybe I'm wrong) that these ethnic Germans don't have to put up with streets plastered in german flags, painted curbs and sectarian murals. I know both sides do this, but the huge majority of it is from the unionist side. You can't travel in this country without having britishness rubbed in your face, which you could say prevented nationalists from "getting over it" and moving on.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 21-03-2009 05:19PM

well if you didn't like having britishness thrust in your face why did you live in the UK?

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 05:20PM

I was born in Ireland.

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 05:22PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Politically we have to deal with the reality that Northern Ireland is in a separate jurisdiction and is a full part of the United Kingdom. That's how they want it, and that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future no doubt. I personally don't think it will be ultimately up to the people in the Republic to decide, but rather the people in the North. That's why actions such as the recent shootings in Northern Ireland are pretty much abhorrent, a very small minority using violence to impose their own political view on a majority.

Of course its up to the people in the North, but we also have a say in it and an influence on what type, if any type of United Ireland it will be. But ultimately as you say its up to the people in the North if they want to join the republic in the first place.

Why is it London's fault I don't get this exactly? You'd need to prove that the vast majority of NI funds don't stay in Northern Ireland, which I think is false for a start, I'm pretty sure the UK are putting in other tax funds raised in Britain to sustain the North as well. So it isn't that the UK are depriving Northern Ireland of funds by any means, but rather that the UK is putting more funds in.

Its London's fault because they were the ones who up until devolution have been governing the North since 1972. Also all public money in the UK goes into the one exchequer fund, whether it comes from NI, Wales, Scotland etc. Why do you think McGuinness and Robinson have to go to Downing Street every 6 months begging for an extra few bob from the exchequer in return for voting with Labour for new anti-terrorism(anti-civil freedom) acts? All parts of the UK get their money from the same place, and its one of the reasons why the SNP want Scotland to be independent.

How do you prove that this is the case that it is certain that if Ireland was politically one that the economy would be great.

How do you prove that the economy would be ruined?

Really? Sure there are avid folks on both sides, but I think most people are happy enough with the current arrangement. If there is evidence to the contrary surely that is when we should start talking about a united Ireland.

There is evidence to the contrary, but for Unionists it means leaving the UK and having their 'Britishness' further diminished, so of course they're not willing to talk about it.

Who are you to say that the Assembly and Westminster aren't a real democracy? For the Unionists it's more than merit that is being counted, it's their cultural identity moreso. As for your point on religion, I think you are right. Most of the Republic's 5% Protestant population are quite happy with the arrangement we have down here.

Its not a real democracy, any country that has to force all parties to be in government with each other and has to have the support of every party on certain issues to avoid a war is not a true democracy, and thats what exists in the North. The SDLP and UUP are trying to change this and remove the compulsory arrangement that exists, personally though I don't think the Norths ready for a 'normal' democracy because it could very easily see another troubles if Unionists got complete control over Stormont.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'm against a united Ireland. I don't really see any benefit to it anymore. A lot of people i talk to about the subject are against reunification or don't care either way.

I can see Northern Ireland becoming an independent state on it's own in the future. I reckon the barriers between the Unionist and Nationalist communities will break down over the next generation or two which will probably see them adopt a mentality of being "Northern Irish" rather than being "Irish" or "British". If that is the case a united Ireland won't be necessary anymore.

The problem with that is that its only an alternative for Unionists. Unionists have their own 'Irish' culture as well as British culture you'd get in England, Scotland or Wales, but the Irish in the North are as Irish as any other part of Ireland and don't claim or desire to have a separate culture, so I couldn't see the Irish in the North supporting an independent NI, they'd just want to be part of the republic if it was ever put on the table, and then all you'd get is repartition which won't benefit anyone.

magick · 21-03-2009 05:23PM

The problem with NI like the internet is that their are too many tolls in it.

philologos · 21-03-2009 05:28PM

fingerbob wrote: »

I'm not sure how the situation is there, but with the treatment that the catholic/nationalist community received from a "protestant government for a protestant people", you could say it would give them the ground to not want to be a part of that state.

This isn't really a justification to impose Irish nationalism on a Unionist majority however. And yes, I would disagree with the pushing of a "Protestant state for a Protestant people" by Craig and Carson in the past, and indeed it isn't justified. I would think that that is far from the modern reality though in Northern Ireland given the police force and other wings of State are now equally occupied by Catholics.

fingerbob wrote: »

Although you could also say alot has changed nowadays but I'm guessing (maybe I'm wrong) that these ethnic Germans don't have to put up with streets plastered in german flags, painted curbs and sectarian murals. I know both sides do this, but the huge majority of it is from the unionist side. You can't travel in this country without having britishness rubbed in your face, which you could say prevented nationalists from "getting over it" and moving on.

fingerbob: On flags, painted curbs, and murals, you know as well as I know that the Nationalists are as good at this as Unionists are. And claiming that the majority of it is from Unionists, well the demographics would indicate that much.

Also as for having "britishness rubbed in your face". What do people expect if they are living in the UK? Northern Ireland is currently a province of the UK, therefore people will have that identity. This isn't meaning that Irish people cannot have their own identity too.

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 05:38PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Also as for having "britishness rubbed in your face". What do people expect if they are living in the UK? Northern Ireland is currently a province of the UK, therefore people will have that identity. This isn't meaning that Irish people cannot have their own identity too.

In 1 post you've just completely alienated and marginalised 800,000 odd people in the North. I could accept your arguement if it was anywhere in Britain, but comparing the North to Britain is not comparing like with like. You say Northern Ireland is part of the UK, therefore people are British and thats the identity people will have. Thats one arguement, that favours Unionism. The other arguement is that Northern Ireland was a state created by a foreign government, with partition forced on the Irish people who got no vote on it, and who were left behind when the Irish Free State was established, and who were treated no better than Jews in Nazi Germany by the Protestant/Unionist-controlled government, who are only in the majority because of the British invading Ireland and planting settlers from Scotland in Ulster and forcing their culture and language on the natives.

fingerbob · 21-03-2009 05:40PM

Jakkass wrote: »

QUOTE]This isn't really a justification to impose Irish nationalism on a Unionist majority however. And yes, I would disagree with the pushing of a "Protestant state for a Protestant people" by Craig and Carson in the past, and indeed it isn't justified. I would think that that is far from the modern reality though in Northern Ireland given the police force and other wings of State are now equally occupied by Catholics.

That's what I'm saying but obviously there is still alot of that mentality left.

fingerbob: On flags, painted curbs, and murals, you know as well as I know that the Nationalists are as good at this as Unionists are. And claiming that the majority of it is from Unionists, well the demographics would indicate that much.

Also as for having "britishness rubbed in your face". What do people expect if they are living in the UK? Northern Ireland is currently a province of the UK, therefore people will have that identity. This isn't meaning that Irish people cannot have their own identity too.

I wouldn't agree there. I live in a 90% catholic town and the only time I see tricolours is on Easter sunday and St Patrick's day to an extent, which is warranted as it is the town he is buried in! Whereas even in the one protestant area in the town it is plastered with flags and the last time I walked through there with a mate he got hit with a hammer for bein a 'taig'. This is evident in every other unionist town where you can't avoid a union jack and not just in marching season. It is alot rarer you see this from the nationalist side unless you are in West Belfast. Then there's the orange order thinking its they're right to walk through nationalist dominated areas. What's the point but to rub it in they're face? You can argue that it's part of the UK but we all know there is alot more to it than that, and you don't see stuff like this to anywhere near the same scale on mainland Britain. I'd also like to add I'm not a republican and I come from a mixed family.

philologos · 21-03-2009 05:41PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Of course its up to the people in the North, but we also have a say in it and an influence on what type, if any type of United Ireland it will be. But ultimately as you say its up to the people in the North if they want to join the republic in the first place.

It is up to the people of the North, and then if and only if a referendum provides a majority could there be any moving forward on the issue.

Jim236 wrote: »

Its London's fault because they were the ones who up until devolution have been governing the North since 1972. Also all public money in the UK goes into the one exchequer fund.

What do you think they do in the Assembly?

Jim236 wrote: »

whether it comes from NI, Wales, Scotland etc. Why do you think McGuinness and Robinson have to go to Downing Street every 6 months begging for an extra few bob from the exchequer?

Of course but then you would have to prove that the amount paid into the exchequer by NI is anywhere near the amount that they receive in actuality if you are to put forward the case that the UK has left them deprived.

Jim236 wrote: »

All parts of the UK get their money from the same place, and its one of the reasons why the SNP want Scotland to be independent.

That's another kettle of fish there

Jim236 wrote: »

How do you prove that the economy would be ruined?

The German example of reunification is a pretty good example of how such a transfer would cost us through the teeth for a long time.

Jim236 wrote: »

There is evidence to the contrary, but for Unionists it means leaving the UK and having their 'Britishness' further diminished, so of course they're not willing to talk about it.

Most people want to remain in the UK currently, so as such that would imply most people are happy with the current arrangement. Of course the Unionists don't want to leave the UK, and it's their choice!

Jim236 wrote: »

Its not a real democracy, any country that has to force all parties to be in government with each other and has to have the support of every party on certain issues to avoid a war is not a true democracy, and thats what exists in the North. The SDLP and UUP are trying to change this and remove the compulsory arrangement that exists, personally though I don't think the Norths ready for a 'normal' democracy because it could very easily see another troubles if Unionists got complete control over Stormont.

Conciliatory politics was chosen as the model as the former power sharing arrangement failed. It suits Northern Ireland by far the best given the situation that it is currently in. We have no reason to suggest that conciliatory legislatures are any less of a democracy than others.

Jim236 wrote: »

The problem with that is that its only an alternative for Unionists. Unionists have their own 'Irish' culture as well as British culture you'd get in England, Scotland or Wales, but the Irish in the North are as Irish as any other part of Ireland and don't claim or desire to have a separate culture, so I couldn't see the Irish in the North supporting an independent NI, they'd just want to be part of the republic if it was ever put on the table, and then all you'd get is repartition which won't benefit anyone.

I don't think repartition is on the cards, it's either all of nothing.

Sofiztikated · 21-03-2009 05:56PM

I always said that to solve this, it would take a few brawny lads, some shovels, and a few stout wooden poles. Get the brawny lads to use the shovels to dig a really deep trench around the border. Then use the poles as levers, thus making Norn Iron its own island, and let them do their own thing.
I don't understand the argument that "We're one landmass, so we should be one country."
The continent of Europe is one land mass (mostly) but is many countries, why should a smaller one be any different?

Jim236 · 21-03-2009 05:59PM

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think they do in the Assembly?

Get a history book, there has only been failed attempt after failed attempt to establish a cross-party assembly since the Unionist-controlled government was brought down in 1972. Only since 1999 has any progress been made, and even then the assembly has still been suspended several times. Only since 2007 has there been any sign that devolution might work.

Of course but then you would have to prove that the amount paid into the exchequer by NI is anywhere near the amount that they receive in actuality if you are to put forward the case that the UK has left them deprived.

I'm not an accountant so I'm not even gonna try scrutinise any figures, but I think if the North moved towards being more independent on private investment than public then the public finances would be in a much better shape. They might be in a better position now with the recession, but when things start to turn around Stormont really should push to increase FDI and lose it's reliance on public sector jobs to keep the population in employment. When that happens there won't be such a big hole in the public finances to fill.

The German example of reunification is a pretty good example of how such a transfer would cost us through the teeth for a long time.

I never used the West/East Germany unification as an example to follow, read my post more carefully.

Most people want to remain in the UK currently, so as such that would imply most people are happy with the current arrangement. Of course the Unionists don't want to leave the UK, and it's their choice!

Don't the Irish in the North get any say no? Judging from your posts you don't seem to acknowledge that any Irish live in the North, and that the Irish nation to you stops at the border, and that if you are born in the North, you're born British.

Conciliatory politics was chosen as the model as the former power sharing arrangement failed. It suits Northern Ireland by far the best given the situation that it is currently in. We have no reason to suggest that conciliatory legislatures are any less of a democracy than others.

Former power-sharing? By power-sharing you mean a government controlled by Unionists, who as a result of gerrymandering won elections in Nationalist-dominated areas? Who had a rule of 1 vote per household knowing that Protestants owned more houses than Nationalists, and who only allowed Protestants to be employed by businesses? They're just a few reasons why that government failed and why the troubles came about, but it was anything but power-sharing.

Northern Ireland.. Whats the big deal?

Comments