UK considered giving half of NI to ROI

T runner · 06-01-2014 04:44PM

timthumbni wrote: »

Good luck to the poor garda assigned to walk the shankill beat. :-)

In a UI situation, The local police force would remain for a period at least.

The fact that the roots of sectarianism have not been addressed will be a stumbling block to any unity whether within NI or within Ireland. Sectarianism within loyalism means that the UVF are still quite willing, IMO, to murder any random Catholic never mind a Garda on the Shankhill road.

Fratton Fred · 06-01-2014 04:52PM

T runner wrote: »

No offense, but I think many unionists are nota s familiar as they should be with the economic position of NI. You're deficit is in Greek proportions. Within the UK NI is an absolute dependency. UK Fiscal policy is set in London and obviously suits Britain.

Look at a comparison between domestic product per person in NI and in the S and E of the ROI:

Southern & Eastern Ireland (3 million) €35,725 GDP equiv per person
Northern Ireland (1.75 million) €19,603 (£15,249) GVO equiv. per person

Within a UI and with fiscal policy being decided in Ireland the 6 counties of NI should in time match or out perform the rest of Ireland.

If the UK, with the 3rd highest deficit in the world squeezes the 10 billion grant down to 5 billion, then a UI becomes economically do-able and sentiment towards it should increase as the wool is removed from the eyes with the supply being cut.

You are comparing a region of the UK with the capital of Ireland.

Fiscal policy would be set in Dublin and northern Ireland would get the same treatment as the rest of Ulster.

T runner · 06-01-2014 04:55PM

gallag wrote: »

The U.K economy is taking off, fastest growing economy in the E.U, the thing your post manages to miss is that Ireland is by far worse of than the U.K fiscally and completely incapable of running as is never mind a U.I.

Read my post:

Economies climb fast after falling far. The ROI economy will climb fast.
It means little. How will the UK reduce its deficit is the question? Having no grant to NI means 100 billion off the deficit in 10 years. That's attractive.

NI is not capable of growing out of its deficit as UK fiscal policy is based on what's best for Britain.

Again,, look at a comparison between domestic product per person in NI and in the S and E of the ROI:

Southern & Eastern Ireland (3 million) €35,725 GDP equiv per person
Northern Ireland (1.75 million) €19,603 (£15,249) GVO equiv. per person

NI is clearly not able to compete within the UK or with ROI.

If NI can match the S & E of Ireland within a UI then its a net tax contributor.

T runner · 06-01-2014 05:05PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You are comparing a region of the UK with the capital of Ireland.

Fiscal policy would be set in Dublin and northern Ireland would get the same treatment as the rest of Ulster.

No, I'm comparing Northern Ireland (in the UK) with South and East Ireland (19 counties in ROI).

There is no seperate fiscal policy for the 3 counties of Ulster that are in the ROI as far as I know so the 6 counties currently of NI would be under the same fiscal rules in a UI as the other 26.

The 3 counties mentioned (and border cities and towns in the 6 counties) would also benefit massively as their natural hinterlands would be restored.

bear1 · 06-01-2014 05:07PM

Interesting article in the Independent today where Cameron is warning that they need to save 25 billion pounds from somewhere from 2015

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/uk-needs-25bn-of-spending-cuts-after-2015-election-osborne-says-29891509.html

A lot of money to try and find, no matter how great the economy.
I'd imagine that the subsidies will slowly start decreasing

Fratton Fred · 06-01-2014 05:14PM

T runner wrote: »

No, I'm comparing Northern Ireland (in the UK) with South and East Ireland (19 counties in ROI).

There is no seperate fiscal policy for the 3 counties of Ulster that are in the ROI as far as I know so the 6 counties currently of NI would be under the same fiscal rules in a UI as the other 26.

The 3 counties mentioned (and border cities and towns in the 6 counties) would also benefit massively as their natural hinterlands would be restored.

Why not the west of Ireland? Donegal and Sligo have been in the ROI since day one and their GDP has still to catch up with that of Dublin.

And how would the border counties miraculously improve?

T runner · 06-01-2014 06:35PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why not the west of Ireland? Donegal and Sligo have been in the ROI since day one and their GDP has still to catch up with that of Dublin.

And how would the border counties miraculously improve?

19 out of the 26 was where the survey was carried out. In a county by county comparison the 6 counties resources compare with medium to rich southern counties.

As i've stated the border counties natural hinterland would be restored. For hinterland you can read market amongst other things. That means Derry's hinterland increases by 150,000. Donegal's by something similar and it is no longer an isolated peninsula with populous markets now very close by.

Sligo town has more people employed than Drogheda town and thus would compete favourably with many counties in the 19. There are poorer rural midland and Munster counties included in these counties.

NI is significantly underperforming within the UK for reasons it can do little about besides cutting its public service which would entail massive unemployment.

There is no reason to believe that NI would remain a dependency when able to compete within Northern Ireland and allowed to compete affectively with Britain under an open economy which is the correct fiscal policy for NI (and the whole Island). NI companies being registered under Dublin rules means they can grow without getting immediately beaten down by bigger more competitive British companies. With Ireland being amongst the biggest exporters per capita in the EU , you can see the potential that exists for northern business people.

Fratton Fred · 06-01-2014 07:29PM

That's all wishful thinking. Last I heard people from Cavan do their weekly shopping in Asda. There is no border as such.

Would Asda and Sainsbury suddenly disappear? Would BT stop all operations in NI? Do businesses in the south not already have to compete with multinationals?

The only difference would be thousands of jobs transferring back to Britain, jobs that are currently carefully monitored to ensure equal opportunities are given to all sectors of the population.

Tzar Chasm · 07-01-2014 02:05AM

am I alone in thinking that a lot of people would prefer that the border remained in place?

sure its all well and good to talk about a united ireland and sing diddledy dee songs of an evening, but its another thing to be able to nip up to newry for some shopping.

this notion of derry city suddenly getting access to a new hinterland is rather odd, where do these people get their groceries at the moment? the advent of debit cards has made cross border shopping really simple.

also despite the rhetoric I can't see most sane people in the north voting for any change which involves replacing the NHS with the HSE.

is their a third way? an actual country of Northern ireland, not a devolved parliament of britain or a province of the republic, but a genuine stand on its own two feet nation of Northern Ireland, was that ever a viable option

tdv123 · 07-01-2014 05:09AM

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

am I alone in thinking that a lot of people would prefer that the border remained in place?

sure its all well and good to talk about a united ireland and sing diddledy dee songs of an evening, but its another thing to be able to nip up to newry for some shopping.

this notion of derry city suddenly getting access to a new hinterland is rather odd, where do these people get their groceries at the moment? the advent of debit cards has made cross border shopping really simple.

also despite the rhetoric I can't see most sane people in the north voting for any change which involves replacing the NHS with the HSE.

is their a third way? an actual country of Northern ireland, not a devolved parliament of britain or a province of the republic, but a genuine stand on its own two feet nation of Northern Ireland, was that ever a viable option

I'm guessing an independent NI would be very unstable economically & socially.

My proposal is for Ireland to have sovereignty over the North but in return the British government has to pay the bills for the whole island & pay of all the Irish governments debts.

Fratton Fred · 07-01-2014 11:08AM

tdv123 wrote: »

My proposal is for Ireland to have sovereignty over the North but in return the British government has to pay the bills for the whole island & pay of all the Irish governments debts.

Cake and eating it comes to mind!

T runner · 07-01-2014 11:37AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's all wishful thinking. Last I heard people from Cavan do their weekly shopping in Asda. There is no border as such.

Would Asda and Sainsbury suddenly disappear? Would BT stop all operations in NI? Do businesses in the south not already have to compete with multinationals?

The only difference would be thousands of jobs transferring back to Britain, jobs that are currently carefully monitored to ensure equal opportunities are given to all sectors of the population.

The fact that GDP per capita in NI is dwarfed by that of the Republic is not wishful thinking it is fact.

The amount of jobs in the public service in NI, and the dearth in the private sector is also fact. Fiscal policy being centralized in London means that NI can not be the small dynamic open economy it needs to be to attract and create jobs. The giants in NI will remain ofcourse, albeit with more competition.

Yes we have to compete with multinationals here too. But we do compete with them, and attract them also. Our GDP proves this.

Ni was not created on economic grounds. It was partitioned on sectarian grounds.

It is a complete dependency within the UK going from the most productive part of Ireland to a state of absolute dependency now.

Economically NI can not truly be competitive and productive outside a UI.

NIs needed fiscal policies and resources are different to Britain and similar to the ROI. That's why the ROIs GDP is high: it operates policies suitable for a state on this Island, not the adjacent one.

There is no hope of the six counties ever adressing the negative fiscal gap. They are attached to the economic cycle of the South east of England instead of the more appropriate Dublin cycle. The lesson of partition has been that this has lead to economic decline. This is endemic. It cannot be solved just ameliorated.

Fratton Fred · 07-01-2014 12:03PM

Again, you are comparing a region of the UK to an entire state.

You are also using GDP figures, which thanks to Ireland's "special" tax arrangements aren't particularly representative.

Ireland's GDP is dwarfed by the UK's, so surely the financial argument would favour Ireland rejoining the UK?

VinLieger · 07-01-2014 01:08PM

We also need to consider security in all this, if a UI happened tomorrow the troubles would reoccur again but instead of the IRA and republicans attacking GB it would be the UVF and the likes attacking the South and it would not just be limited to Dublin, are any of us eager to see that happen?

As far as i'm concerned at this stage a UI is a fairy tale, the only possible solution other than how it is now is a fully independent NI

T runner · 07-01-2014 02:25PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Again, you are comparing a region of the UK to an entire state.

I am comparing NI with comparable regions of the Republic.
Even, poorer remainder Republic (Border, Midland, and Western) NIs GDP per capita is €19000 vs €24000 for that region. ie 20% less.

Obviously NI , compares by far the worst of other regions of the UK.

So the poorest region in Ireland and Britain is the 6 counties of NI.
That's because they are the region whose fiscal policy is most unsuited to them.

You are also using GDP figures, which thanks to Ireland's "special" tax arrangements aren't particularly representative.

Ireland's GDP is dwarfed by the UK's, so surely the financial argument would favour Ireland rejoining the UK?

Ireland has the sovereignty to set its CT rate just like any other state. Unfortunately for NI, it does not. Although, even if it could, its small workforce would leave it remaining uncompetitive with the Republic.

Its GDP per capita. And NI Ireland produces the lowest in the whole of Britain and Ireland. Ireland joining the UK would mean a slow loss of competitiveness with our fiscal policy decided to benefit south west England. Eventually 75%+ of our massively reduced "exports" would be to Britain and only goods which were beneficial to her and not produced there.
Britain would be rewarded for this ridiculous arrangement by a price Tag of probably high above €50 billion Euro annual grant to keep Ireland with the same services as Britain.

T runner · 07-01-2014 02:31PM

VinLieger wrote: »

We also need to consider security in all this, if a UI happened tomorrow the troubles would reoccur again but instead of the IRA and republicans attacking GB it would be the UVF and the likes attacking the South and it would not just be limited to Dublin, are any of us eager to see that happen?

As far as i'm concerned at this stage a UI is a fairy tale, the only possible solution other than how it is now is a fully independent NI

Have you not been reading the economic argument? NI is a complete dependency. Who on earth would lend money to finance a state who needs €12 billion per annum grant (not a loan) to make ends meet?

Economically a UI is the best option.

Tackling sectarianism is really dealing with the root cause of the border. It wasn't touched in any of the agreements.

timthumbni · 07-01-2014 03:16PM

tdv123 wrote: »

What a load of bollox. I'm pretty sure the loyalists didn't need any encouragement from the IRA in expressing their irrational fear of UI when the UVF started randomly murdering Catholics in 1966 or UVF/RUC backed mobs started invading nationalists areas in 69 & burned entire streets out long before the provisional IRA showed up on the scene.

I was simply referring to what one of the sdlp members had said about the iras campaign. And let's face it the iras bombing and shooting campaign has not really moved a united Ireland much closer now has it? So I would agree with his statement.

If you want someone to "unite" with you then it's a bit weird to think that bombing and shooting them will acheive this. The ira and other republicans tried to bomb and shoot unionists into submission for 30 odd years and therefore into a united ireland. They failed... Spectacularly. However they did succeed in making even moderate unionists and even a lot of neutrals despise the ground they walk on right up to their political brothers in arms, Sinn Fein? (And for good reason)

Regarding a truely united ireland in the future the only ways this could be achieved successfully is if:-

1. - the ira or current offshoots whatever they call themselves bomb or shoot the majority of the current unionist population either to death or forcing them to move away to the uk mainland.

2. - that republicans or nationalists try to peacefully and rationally persuade unionists that their best course of action is to accept a united Ireland model at some stage in the future and work towards this.

Regarding option 1 the ira have already tried a form of this and failed. I can't imagine that this would ever succeed when dealing with NI unionists as they are equally if not more stubborn than NI nationalists. Present day republicans (some call them dissidents) would like this sort of option but hopefully they will be dealt with.

That leaves option 2 which is obviously the option that should be pursued by anyone sane. The problem with this is that Sinn Fein despite a few sound bites over this last few years about reconciliation with unionists have not been practising what they preach. Some of their mlas seem hellbent on rubbing up unionists the wrong way.

This may seem funny to their own supporter base etc but it also suits the unionist parties who can point to this and say. Look, we told you this is what you are dealing with, SF/IRA, no change etc. imagine what would happen in a united Ireland etc.

If nationalists could even persuade a sizable number of unionists that a united ireland in the future is in their best interests then it would make that option much more likely. As it is, everyone sits in their trenches. That position is probably much easier to take as a unionist as Norn Iron remains under British rule.

timthumbni · 07-01-2014 03:19PM

T runner wrote: »

Have you not been reading the economic argument? NI is a complete dependency. Who on earth would lend money to finance a state who needs €12 billion per annum grant (not a loan) to make ends meet?

Economically a UI is the best option.

Tackling sectarianism is really dealing with the root cause of the border. It wasn't touched in any of the agreements.

Integrated education would be a great place to start if you want to tackle sectarianism. IMO.

T runner · 07-01-2014 03:36PM

timthumbni wrote: »

Integrated education would be a great place to start if you want to tackle sectarianism. IMO.

I agree and would go as far as to say that state education should be religiously and culturally secular. Educate Together primary schools in the Republic are a good model, with ethos based on human rights principles. (although multi they are multi-denomonational rather than completely secular).
They will expand into secondary education and should benefit from the Lbour party's push here to take religion out of schooling.

I just wish the Catholic church had not shunned the model schools initiative in Ireland in the 19th century. But if you control education, you hold more power.

Fratton Fred · 07-01-2014 03:39PM

T runner wrote: »

I am comparing NI with comparable regions of the Republic.
Even, poorer remainder Republic (Border, Midland, and Western) NIs GDP per capita is €19000 vs €24000 for that region. ie 20% less.

Obviously NI , compares by far the worst of other regions of the UK.

So the poorest region in Ireland and Britain is the 6 counties of NI.
That's because they are the region whose fiscal policy is most unsuited to them.

No, it's because, for some reason, foreign companies did not want to invest in northern Ireland.

The UK government, in turn, took control of the situation by pumping loads of internal investment in. Create jobs, a balanced workforce and create less radicalized teenagers. The only way it could do this was move civil service jobs there as part of its decentralisation policy.

GDP in Ireland is misleading. For example, one of the largest companies in Ireland in 2006 was an off shoot ofMicrosoft, round island one. It employed a handful of people, yet made a profit of €3.2bn. The only people who gained from this were the politicians who told us all we were rich because we had the second highest per capita GDP on the planet.

It was playing with convenient and misleading stats, which is what you are doing.

IrishProd · 07-01-2014 03:46PM

timthumbni wrote: »

The ira and other republicans tried to bomb and shoot unionists into submission for 30 odd years and therefore into a united ireland.

The conflict was started by oppression and the only reason the IRA came back in the 60's was to protect the Catholic and nationalist areas in the north, it had nothing to do with a united Ireland. Republicans had abandoned militancy to pursue a peaceful means of achieving a socialist, united Ireland, which they were deprived of when Ian Paisley, UUP (with the exception of Terence O'Neil) and the backing of the loyalist paramilitaries, B Specials and the RUC started beating people off the streets (who were only lookinf for eqal rights) and started their campaign of terror which culuminated in the pogroms of 1969 and the collapse of Stormont and the victory of hardline unionists, which forced the IRA to abandon their political path and for nationalists and republicans to defend themselves and their communities with arms as they were deprived of peaceful means.

The armed struggle started off as one of self-defence but eventually developed into one of national liberation and resistance. The struggle was never against the British people but one against the British government and their unionist death squads and paramilitaries.

It was never about religion despite what hardline bigoted ulster unionists falsely claim. I do not recall republicans saying they were fighting for the pope, the Church and the Vatican but the unionists on the otherhand with their gerrymandering, apartheid and Orange marches etc.......

1960–1969

Since 1964, civil rights activists had been protesting against the discrimination of Catholics and Irish nationalists by the Protestant and Unionist-dominated government of Northern Ireland. The civil rights movement called for: 'one man, one vote'; the end to gerrymandered electoral boundaries; the end to discrimination in employment and in the allocation of public housing; repeal of the Special Powers Act (which was used to intern nationalist and republican activists); and the disbanding of the B-Specials (an overwhelmingly Protestant reserve police force which was accused of police brutality against Catholics).[6]

1966

April Loyalist led by Ian Paisley, a Protestant fundamentalist preacher, founded the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee (UCDC) to challenge the civil rights movement. It set up a paramilitary-style wing called the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV).[6]

21 May A loyalist group calling itself the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) issued a statement declaring war on the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The group claimed to be composed of "heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause".[7] At the time, the IRA was not engaged in armed action, but Irish nationalists/republicans were marking the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising. Some unionists and loyalists warned "that a revival of the IRA was imminent".[6]

May–June The UVF carried out three attacks on Irish Catholics and Catholic-owned property in Belfast. In the first, a Protestant civilian died when UVF members firebombed the Catholic-owned pub beside her house. In the second, a Catholic civilian was shot dead as he walked home. In the third, the UVF opened-fire on three Catholic civilians as they left a pub, killing one and wounding the others.[6]

1968

20 June Civil rights activists (including Stormont MP Austin Currie) protested against discrimination in the allocation of housing by illegally occupying a house in Caledon, County Tyrone. An unmarried Protestant woman (the secretary of a local Unionist politician) had been given the house ahead of Catholic families with children. The protesters were forcibly removed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).[8]

24 August Northern Ireland's first civil rights march was held. Many more marches would be held over the following year. Loyalists, especially the UCDC and UPV, organized counter-demonstrations to get the marches banned.[8]

5 October A civil rights march was to take place in Derry. When the loyalist Apprentice Boys announced its intention to hold a march at the same place and time, the Government banned the civil rights march. When civil rights activists defied the ban, the RUC baton-charged the crowd and injured over 100 people, including a number of MPs. This led to two days of serious rioting in Derry between Catholics and the RUC.

9 October About 2,000 students from Queen's University Belfast tried to march to Belfast City Hall in protest against 'police brutality' on 5 October in Derry. The march was blocked by loyalists led by Ian Paisley. After the demonstration, a student civil rights group—People's Democracy—was formed.[8]

1969

4 January A People's Democracy march between Belfast and Derry was repeatedly attacked by loyalists and off-duty police (RUC) officers. At Burntollet it was ambushed by ~200 loyalists and off-duty police armed with iron bars, bricks and bottles. The marchers claimed that police did little to protect them. When the march arrived in Derry it was broken up by the RUC, which sparked serious rioting between Irish nationalists and the RUC.[9]

March–April Loyalists—members of the UVF and UPV—bombed water and electricity installations in Northern Ireland. They hoped the attacks would be blamed on the dormant IRA and on elements of the civil rights movement, which was demanding an end to discrimination against Catholics. The loyalists intended to bring down the Unionist Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Terence O'Neill, who had promised some concessions to the civil rights movement. There were six bombings and all were immediately blamed on the IRA. As a response, British soldiers were sent to guard installations. Unionist support for O'Neill waned, and on 28 April he resigned as Prime Minister.[10]

17 April People's Democracy activist Bernadette Devlin became the youngest woman ever elected to Westminster.

14 July A 67-year-old Catholic civilian died after being attacked by RUC officers in Dungiven

12–14 August Battle of the Bogside – during an Apprentice Boys march, serious rioting erupted in Derry between Irish nationalists and the RUC. RUC officers, backed by loyalists, entered the nationalist Bogside in armoured cars and tried to suppress the riot by using CS gas, water cannon and eventually firearms. The almost continuous rioting lasted for two days.[12]

14–17 August Northern Ireland riots of August 1969 – in response to events in Derry, Irish nationalists held protests throughout Northern Ireland. Some of these became violent. In Belfast, loyalists responded by attacking nationalist districts. Rioting also erupted in Newry, Armagh, Crossmaglen, Dungannon, Coalisland and Dungiven. Eight people were shot dead and at least 133 were treated for gunshot wounds. Scores of houses and businesses were burnt-out, most of them owned by Catholics. Thousands of families, mostly Catholics, were forced to flee their homes and refugee camps were set up in the Republic.[13] The British Army was deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland, which marked the beginning of Operation Banner.

11 October Three people were shot dead during street violence in the loyalist Shankill area of Belfast. Two were Protestant civilians shot by the British Army and one was an RUC officer shot by the UVF. He was the first RUC officer to be killed in the Troubles. The loyalists "had taken to the streets in protest at the Hunt Report, which recommended the disbandment of the B Specials and disarming of the RUC".[14]

October–December The UVF detonated bombs in the Republic of Ireland. In Dublin it detonated a car bomb near the Garda central detective bureau and telephone exchange headquarters.[15] It also bombed a power station at Ballyshannon, a Wolfe Tone memorial in Bodenstown, and the Daniel O'Connell monument in Dublin.

December A split formed in the Irish Republican Army over how to respond to the violence, creating what was to become the Official IRA (OIRA) and Provisional IRA (PIRA).

1970

31 March Following an Orange Order parade, intense riots erupted on the Springfield Road in Belfast. Violence lasted for three days, and the British Army used CS gas for the first time in large quantities. About 38 soldiers and dozens of civilians were injured.[16]

27 June Following the arrest of Bernadette Devlin, intense riots erupted in Derry and Belfast. During the evening, loyalist paramilitaries made incursions into republican areas of Belfast. This led to a prolonged gun battle between republicans and loyalists. Seven people were killed.

3–5 July Falls Curfew – for three days the British Army imposed a curfew on the Falls Road area of Belfast as they searched for weapons. During the operation they came under attack from the Official IRA (OIRA) and republican rioters. Five civilians were killed, sixty were injured and three hundred were arrested by the British Army. Fifteen soldiers were shot by the OIRA.

2 August Rubber bullets were used for the first time.[17]

August Leading Nationalist party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) was formed. 1971

6 February Robert Curtis became the first British soldier to die in the Troubles when he was shot by the PIRA on New Lodge Road, Belfast.[18]

9 March Three off-duty Scottish soldiers are killed by the PIRA; 4000 shipyard workers take to the streets to demand internment in response.

23 March Brian Faulkner became the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

25 May The PIRA threw a time bomb into Springfield Road British Army/RUC base in Belfast, killing British Army Sergeant Michael Willetts and wounding seven RUC officers, two British soldiers and eighteen civilians.

8 July During street disturbances, British soldiers shot dead two Catholic civilians in Free Derry. As a result, riots erupted in the city and the SDLP withdrew from Stormont in protest.[19]

9 August Operation Demetrius (or Internment) was introduced in Northern Ireland. The security forces arrested 342 people suspected of supporting paramilitaries. During 9–11 August, fourteen civilians were shot dead by the British Army, and three security forces personnel were shot dead by republicans. In the following days, an estimated 7000 people fled their homes. The vast majority of the dead, imprisoned and refugees were nationalists and Catholics.[20]

9 - 11 August During the internment round-up operation in west Belfast, the Parachute Regiment killed 11 unarmed civilians in what became known as the Ballymurphy massacre.

September Loyalists formed the Ulster Defence Association (UDA). The group would quickly become the largest loyalist group in Northern Ireland.[21]

4 December McGurk's Bar bombing – the UVF exploded a bomb at a Catholic-owned pub in Belfast, killing fifteen Catholic civilians and wounding seventeen others. This was the highest death toll from a single incident in Belfast during the Troubles.

T runner · 07-01-2014 04:35PM

timthumbni wrote: »

If you want someone to "unite" with you then it's a bit weird to think that bombing and shooting them will acheive this. The ira and other republicans tried to bomb and shoot unionists into submission for 30 odd years and therefore into a united ireland.

I think the IRAs campaign was targeted at British security forces rather than Unionists although there were also murders and bombings in loyalist areas.

Remember the IRA were not trying to make Unionists unite with nationalists. They were trying to make a united Ireland.

Unionists need to look at the sectarianism in their culture which contributed greatly to these troubles and other similar periods of disturbance in the last few centuries. Anti-Catholic beliefs in Protestant churches must not be allowed to spill over beyond the theological level to open hatred amongst loyalists and latent sectarianism in other classes towards Catholics.

They failed... Spectacularly. However they did succeed in making even moderate unionists and even a lot of neutrals despise the ground they walk on right up to their political brothers in arms, Sinn Fein? (And for good reason)

If Unionists cant recognize their own fundamental part in causing the troubles then they are doomed to reoccur. Its happened 7-8 times in the last 300 years. The flags protest and the recent Haass talks failure are ominous.

Regarding a truely united ireland in the future the only ways this could be achieved successfully is if:-

1. - the ira or current offshoots whatever they call themselves bomb or shoot the majority of the current unionist population either to death or forcing them to move away to the uk mainland.

2. - that republicans or nationalists try to peacefully and rationally persuade unionists that their best course of action is to accept a united Ireland model at some stage in the future and work towards this.

Id add a third: sectarianism is rooted out of NI for good as happened in the rest of Ireland nearly 100 years ago and in Europe centuries ago.

That leaves option 2 which is obviously the option that should be pursued by anyone sane.

Option two is problematic when a sizable proportion of the people you are trying to persuade openly, or latently believes you and most of the ROI residents are something less than them by virtue of your affiliated religion.

The problem with this is that Sinn Fein despite a few sound bites over this last few years about reconciliation with unionists have not been practising what they preach. Some of their mlas seem hellbent on rubbing up unionists the wrong way.

This may seem funny to their own supporter base etc but it also suits the unionist parties who can point to this and say. Look, we told you this is what you are dealing with, SF/IRA, no change etc. imagine what would happen in a united Ireland etc.

Remember the recent Haass talks failed on the Parades issue. Do you know the exact parades issue the DUP sank the talks on?

One of the stipulations was that no music or banners promoting prescribed organisations (UVF or IRA) was allowed in any marches. This would prescribe many republican marches but would also prescribe the loyalist bands who march behind the regular orange bands in parades. With the DUP losing ground in marginal seats in East and North Belfast and with the recent resurgence in Loyalism (the UVF), the DUP pulled the plug. These were stipulations that actually insisted upon by the DUP as far back as 2010 to promote themselves as the anti-terrorism party. The DUP blamed "unacceptable language" as the reason but that's bull, any unacceptable language was sorted weeks ago apparently.

The UVF recently took over control of the flags dispute in Belfast.
In effect the DUP sank the whole initiative for a few votes and allowed the UVF/Orange alliance dictate the outcome, their voice talking above the whole of civic NI society which wanted a resolution.

None of the has stuff questioned the legitimacy of the NI state or its behavior from 1920-70s. It would have been officially written into the history books that the conflict had nothing at all to do with any oppression by the NI state, which would have strengthened the Unionist position enormously.

That was all thrown away for a few UVF votes. So on the Unionist side: you have an unholy alliance between the UVF and the orange order. And this group are dictating the outcome of major agreements!

As ive said many Unionists don't know, or don't want to know what's going on in their name.

Imagine it from a Catholic viewpoint: The Haass talks really failed because the DUP wanted to protect the UVFs right to sing sectarian songs and display sectarian and paramiliary banners in orange parades!

timthumbni · 07-01-2014 07:59PM

T runner wrote: »

I think the IRAs campaign was targeted at British security forces rather than Unionists although there were also murders and bombings in loyalist areas.

Timthumbni - yes, many many deaths and injuries against Protestants/unionists by republicans.

Remember the IRA were not trying to make Unionists unite with nationalists. They were trying to make a united Ireland.

Timthumbni:- and indeed that seems to have part of the IRAs problem. They were trying to make a united united through murder when even the village idiot would have known that this wasn't going to work in Northern Ireland.

Unionists need to look at the sectarianism in their culture which contributed greatly to these troubles and other similar periods of disturbance in the last few centuries. Anti-Catholic beliefs in Protestant churches must not be allowed to spill over beyond the theological level to open hatred amongst loyalists and latent sectarianism in other classes towards Catholics.

Timthumbni - I doubt many loyalists go anywhere near a church of any description to be honest. There is certainly a problem with sectarianism in Northern Ireland though. It certainly isn't just an issue with unionists though.

Option two is problematic when a sizable proportion of the people you are trying to persuade openly, or latently believes you and most of the ROI residents are something less than them by virtue of your affiliated religion.

Timthumbni :- again this is not a one way street. If you seriously think it is then you are being very naive about Northern Ireland.

Remember the recent Haass talks failed on the Parades issue. Do you know the exact parades issue the DUP sank the talks on?

Imagine it from a Catholic viewpoint: The Haass talks really failed because the DUP wanted to protect the UVFs right to sing sectarian songs and display sectarian and paramiliary banners in orange parades!

I have taken little interest in the haas talks as I thought from the start it wouldn't produce much. I doubt if it collapsed solely to the point you referred to. In fact judging by the news tonight there were numerous issues that the uup wouldn't sign up to either and even the alliance party had some issues.

The parties should be able to at least take the common ground issues away and do something with them. The haas proposals seem to be dead though. I'm not sure why they needed an american (or anyone else for that matter) to come in the first place. Let's see where they go from here on their own.

Happyman42 · 07-01-2014 10:56PM

VinLieger wrote: »

We also need to consider security in all this, if a UI happened tomorrow the troubles would reoccur again but instead of the IRA and republicans attacking GB it would be the UVF and the likes attacking the South and it would not just be limited to Dublin, are any of us eager to see that happen?

Never going to happen in a sustained way or threatening way. Think about it, what would be the point, to force themselves back into favour with a Britain that has just cut them loose? Pointless and any militancy would quickly give way to pragmatism... the marrow of decent unionism.

Iwasfrozen · 08-01-2014 03:48PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Never going to happen in a sustained way or threatening way. Think about it, what would be the point, to force themselves back into favour with a Britain that has just cut them loose? Pointless and any militancy would quickly give way to pragmatism... the marrow of decent unionism.

That or independence. Northern nationalists were in the same boat when Dublin cut them lose.

VinLieger · 08-01-2014 08:02PM

T runner wrote: »

Have you not been reading the economic argument? NI is a complete dependency. Who on earth would lend money to finance a state who needs €12 billion per annum grant (not a loan) to make ends meet?

Economically a UI is the best option.

Tackling sectarianism is really dealing with the root cause of the border. It wasn't touched in any of the agreements.

Yes but for who? Certainly not the south. Everyday there are children turning 18 who have grown up without the idea that a UI is whats best being constantly hammered into them. The longer it goes on the less likely it is imo that the south would vote for a UI than it is the North would.

Many young young people today feel no allegiance to the republicans up north and nor should they.

Godge · 08-01-2014 08:40PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes but for who? Certainly not the south. Everyday there are children turning 18 who have grown up without the idea that a UI is whats best being constantly hammered into them. The longer it goes on the less likely it is imo that the south would vote for a UI than it is the North would.

Many young young people today feel no allegiance to the republicans up north and nor should they.

Correct, what northern nationalists don't consider is that it is going to take the South at least 20 years to sort itself out economically before it could even consider adding the economic burden of the north.

In a culture where people have had 25 years of economic hardship by then, how willing would they be to take on more.

The economic arguments make no sense at all unless it can conclusively be shown that the economic benefits operate on both sides of the border. Given the huge proportion of NI society dependent on London taxpayers, why would southern taxpayers consider taking on that burden?

Dr.Tank Adams · 09-01-2014 01:12AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes but for who? Certainly not the south. Everyday there are children turning 18 who have grown up without the idea that a UI is whats best being constantly hammered into them. The longer it goes on the less likely it is imo that the south would vote for a UI than it is the North would.

Many young young people today feel no allegiance to the republicans up north and nor should they.

I'd disagree with that, it's not a case of feeling allegiance to "northern nationalists", it's a case of feeling a connection with fellow Irish people, which most still have I think, and why wouldn't they? What's the difference between being a Cork born Irishman or Derry born Irishman? They're both Irish and there's no reason to feel any less allegiance to the Derry born one just because the area he was born is currently part of the UK. He'[s still just as Irish as anyone else.

Godge · 09-01-2014 09:59AM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

I'd disagree with that, it's not a case of feeling allegiance to "northern nationalists", it's a case of feeling a connection with fellow Irish people, which most still have I think, and why wouldn't they? What's the difference between being a Cork born Irishman or Derry born Irishman? They're both Irish and there's no reason to feel any less allegiance to the Derry born one just because the area he was born is currently part of the UK. He'[s still just as Irish as anyone else.

you are thinking in sentimental terms.

A United Ireland in say 2020 woulld mean turning around to southern public servants and saying hey, remember your pay was cut several times over ten years ago and you still haven't got it back, well, don't expect to see it for another ten years as we have to take on the increased costs of the six counties who can't pay for themselves as well as an unknown increased security cost and risk from those who won't like it. And you taxpayers over there who thought we might be relaxing some of that USC by now, well we might have to increase it instead.

How much loyalty will that Cork tax-paying public servant feel to his Derry counterpart then?

A lot of sentimental rubbish is posted here when the hard economic realities mean that anyone paying tax in the South would be mad to vote for a united Ireland.

Dr.Tank Adams · 09-01-2014 08:53PM

Godge wrote: »

you are thinking in sentimental terms.

A United Ireland in say 2020 woulld mean turning around to southern public servants and saying hey, remember your pay was cut several times over ten years ago and you still haven't got it back, well, don't expect to see it for another ten years as we have to take on the increased costs of the six counties who can't pay for themselves as well as an unknown increased security cost and risk from those who won't like it. And you taxpayers over there who thought we might be relaxing some of that USC by now, well we might have to increase it instead.

How much loyalty will that Cork tax-paying public servant feel to his Derry counterpart then?

A lot of sentimental rubbish is posted here when the hard economic realities mean that anyone paying tax in the South would be mad to vote for a united Ireland.

No I'm not, I'm thinking in terms of how most Irish people feel a little bit of camaraderie towards their fellow country men. As for the economic side of things, yes there would be some extra burden on the taxpayer, but not as much as some scaremongerers like yourself try to make out, increased population and resources means increased gov. income which goes a long way to balancing the difference, and it's not as if the Irish gov. would continue with the ridiculously high subsidies the British gov. pours into the north, they'd simply bring it into line with the amount of money they put into the rest of the areas of Ireland, further balancing things out.

UK considered giving half of NI to ROI

Comments