QuoteAnd there was me thinking Mr Tayto would be the controversial one!
Realistic?Originally Posted by backstothewall
I don't think so.
And there was me thinking Mr Tayto would be the controversial one!
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
Dur tooken oor lough!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1117/832423-lough-foyle/
That's some serious gall on behalf of Brokenshire to come out with that in this day and age.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
There's an easy solution to that. Simply veto a trade deal after Brexit until they hand over control of the 2 loughs.
Actually make it 3. Insist they throw in Lough Erne, and the rest of Fermanagh.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
I can live with that. The Ancestral Seat reunited at last...
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
So we're getting back to the days of the Treaty Ports... good times...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1130/835...rthern-border/
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
It isn't only the Lough that is in dispute either, the area extending out to sea beyond Magilligan Point is also contested. A few years ago there was an offshore windfarm planned for the Tunes Plateau sited on the seabed between Greencastle and Portstewart but foundered due to jurisdiction issues.
The area in dispute is a stretch of close to 100 square km. It's a massive body of water in question here.
https://kesslereffect.bandcamp.com/album/kepler - New music. It's not that bad.
Hi GR, long time no squabble!Hope you've been keeping well.
As you may have noticed, I've been on a digital detox for a few months - no forums, tweeting, blogging and so forth - so just getting a chance to respond to some of your points here now. There's certainly been plenty to keep us entertained and interested in the meantime.
Anyway, back on point, Emerson has an economics degree, according to this tweet of his: https://twitter.com/newtonemerson/st...19814307835905
Maybe "economist" gave the wrong impression - he hasn't dedicated his career to economics, after all - but he'd have a greater and more specialised understanding of the field than your average person and he approved the soundness of Burke's study.
A majority on the island and south of the border seek unity. Whether or not that majority would support the conception of a new state and constitution, I'm not sure. I've never claimed the latter more radical idea has majority support or currency just yet. In fact, it may well not have. That's why I consistently talk of it as amounting to a challenge for republicanism. I envisage it may be a challenge to convince those people who expect unionists to fall into line without any give from nationalism/republicanism in return. It's something unity proponents need to start discussing more and putting out there in order to move the conversation and concept forward towards fruition.One step at a time. What evidence is there that a majority of your fellow citizens want a new State, for fairly crucial example?
Polls in the south indicate clear majority-support for unity. Anyway, I still don't understand what I'm supposed to have been side-stepping. My position has always been that securing unity will be a massive challenge for republicanism; that challenge entails both convincing unionists of the basic idea and further convincing already-sympathetic or supportive southerners, nationalists and republicans of accepting compromises that will most likely be necessary to actually realise and consolidate a new agreed, stable and thriving Ireland for all. I'm open to discussing things and trying to work out possible avenues for compromise. What am I side-stepping?I don't think you've offered any real evidence of opinion in the South changing from ingrained partitionism. It's an essential first step which must precede a UI.
Naturally, events of late have somewhat eroded her teflon coating. The upcoming assembly election will be very interesting. Ian Paisley Junior's glowing tribute to Martin McGuinness on 'The View' last night was quite a shock.Yes, four Unionist parties contested (it was five with the hapless NI21 in 2014), but Arlene clearly has support right across Unionism, from the sink estates to rural hillbillies. Though that can change, it has before.
I don't think I've ever seen a DUPer break rank like that before and show such grace and humility. He certainly went up in my estimation, although I suspect, like many analysts, that it was also a veiled attack on the aloof, abrasive and divisive manner of Foster's disastrous leadership. Her frosty style and intransigent attitude have certainly come back to bite the DUP. Paisley sees that the broader societal tide is also turning and that "not an inch" unionism just doesn't have the purchase it once did any longer.
I've perhaps also come to realise that what I once (a few months ago) admired or thought of as Foster's confidence, courage and tenacity in the face of adversity is really just defensive arrogance and petty disdain for her perceived social and moral inferiors; not very admirable qualities for a supposed leader.
I still can't believe that she turned her nose up at Martin McGuinness' forward-thinking and leaderly suggestion that they both attend an Ireland game and a NI game at the Euros together in an official capacity. In the end, she went to just a NI game, thus completely ignoring the team supported by nearly half of the native dwellers in the jurisdiction of which she was first minister, whilst McGuinness went ahead and did the noble thing regardless and attended a NI game and an Ireland game in an official capacity.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 21/01/2017 at 11:08 AM.
I sense some of these are semi-serious or in jest, but I've had a few months off and need to tuck my teeth into something, so I'll bite.
Are you from a community regularly affected by intrusive and imperious parading? You may well be, but I think the collective wishes of communities directly impacted upon should not and cannot realistically be overlooked by way of some broad-brush constitutional decree. The reason the Commission ban certain parades isn't just because some people somewhere might get offended; it's because they're a major risk to public safety/order in specific areas/communities and require huge security operations to police them because those who organise them have consistently demonstrated themselves incapable of policing themselves and showing respect for the other community with whom they share the land.1. March anywhere you like. We'll put it in the constitution. No parades commission or any of that nonsense. Just let the cops know what your at and don't act the ride by doing anything at rush hour on a Monday morning
I think truth and transparency, first and foremost, is crucial to building trust and reconciliation. Pretending like this that 'the Troubles' were a conflict between "good" and "evil" doesn't just grossly misrepresent history; it's also grossly insulting to those who suffered at the hands of the British army, the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries. And still these elements (who systematically colluded with one another, after all) conceal the truth behind the dubious curtain of "national security", in direct contravention of ECtHR directions and in breach their ECHR obligations. State forces and loyalist paramilitaries were targetting civilians before the Provos ever emerged. The British army were on the ground buttressing the discriminatory unionist status quo four months before anyone knew anything of the Provos. Officialising or setting in stone a false historical narrative would be dangerously Orwellian and pretty dubious foundational grounds on which to establish a new Ireland for all.3. We'll sign something that says they were the baddies and then never mention the Provos again.
That would essentially mean we'd be relinquishing our status as a sovereign republic - with all the ideals of equality and so forth that that is supposed to entail - and re-joining the UK. As head of state of Ireland, the queen or king of England would have the ultimate say over all our laws. In other words, not happening. It would be in total contravention of everything we stand for as a republic of supposed equal citizens.8. The Queen/King of England can be Head of State. Rather than having a President we'll elect a Lord Lieutenant to live in the Aras and exercise the current powers of the President
I say we just let the people of the city fairly and democratically decide the name of their own city once and for all.9. Londonderry. We won't promise to say it, but we will put it on the roadsigns. Even the ones in Donegal.
It was, wasn't it. Flanagan didn't go far enough in rebuffing Brokenshire's nonsense, in my opinion. The Irish state actually has a much more credible legal claim to the entire waters allegedly under dispute - never mind a half-way split - than Britain does, by virtue of an act passed by the British parliament itself. See this post from the flag protests thread: http://foot.ie/threads/175511-The-Fl...=1#post1809368
It's somewhat amusing how "taking back control" has now come to mean "designating control of UK immigration to the Irish government". I hope the Irish government tells the British government to do one.
Tongue was firmly in cheek, though to be honest I probably would be prepared to suck all that lot up to end partition and get rid of the English.I sense some of these are semi-serious or in jest, but I've had a few months off and need to tuck my teeth into something, so I'll bite.
Are you from a community regularly affected by intrusive and imperious parading? You may well be, but I think the collective wishes of communities directly impacted upon should not and cannot realistically be overlooked by way of some broad-brush constitutional decree. The reason the Commission ban certain parades isn't just because some people somewhere might get offended; it's because they're a major risk to public safety/order in specific areas/communities and require huge security operations to police them because those who organise them have consistently demonstrated themselves incapable of policing themselves and showing respect for the other community with whom they share the land.
I think truth and transparency, first and foremost, is crucial to building trust and reconciliation. Pretending like this that 'the Troubles' were a conflict between "good" and "evil" doesn't just grossly misrepresent history; it's also grossly insulting to those who suffered at the hands of the British army, the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries. And still these elements (who systematically colluded with one another, after all) conceal the truth behind the dubious curtain of "national security", in direct contravention of ECtHR directions and in breach their ECHR obligations. State forces and loyalist paramilitaries were targetting civilians before the Provos ever emerged. The British army were on the ground buttressing the discriminatory unionist status quo four months before anyone knew anything of the Provos. Officialising or setting in stone a false historical narrative would be dangerously Orwellian and pretty dubious foundational grounds on which to establish a new Ireland for all.
That would essentially mean we'd be relinquishing our status as a sovereign republic - with all the ideals of equality and so forth that that is supposed to entail - and re-joining the UK. As head of state of Ireland, the queen or king of England would have the ultimate say over all our laws. In other words, not happening. It would be in total contravention of everything we stand for as a republic of supposed equal citizens.
I say we just let the people of the city fairly and democratically decide the name of their own city once and for all.
I'd disagree with saying bringing back queenie would be effectively rejoining the UK though. Canada is no less independent because they still have her as head of state. I'd prefer a republic, but it's a good place to give a bit of ground. It would have no practical effect on running the place.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
Welcome back, admirable self-restraint. I should try the same myself, although to be fair I did go eight weeks 'dry' on here between November and earlier this month.
Opinion polls, sure. But the thing is, there's never been an election (or referendum) result that mandates a Southern government to start negotiating for even a limited redraw of the border. As I sometimes mention, it hasn't moved a metric mile (or indeed inch) away from Puckoon since 1925. Southern voters want a united Ireland until it becomes more than a notional possibility, at which point I still think they're likely to get cold feet. You're not alone, most Southern (and Northern Nationalist) commentators shy away from this possibility.Polls in the south indicate clear majority-support for unity. Anyway, I still don't understand what I'm supposed to have been side-stepping
Aye, Arlene proves the 'Peter Principle'. She had a safe pair of hands until promotion showed she didn'tNaturally, events of late have somewhat eroded [Foster's] teflon coating. The upcoming assembly election will be very interesting.Contrary to bull****ting hacks like Emerson, who claim they always knew she was a wrong 'un but just never got round to telling us until December...
As in other recent polls, isn't it separate head-counts within the two blocs, basically no voters floating between them, and the rest of us hoping that the little guys will prosper or at least hang on.
Ha ha. Alternatively, Marty proposed a predictable stunt, Arlene politely ignored it. Anyway, you're forgetting that she did go to watch the team representing NI's main minority language communityI still can't believe that she turned her nose up at Martin McGuinness' [noble], forward-thinking and leaderly suggestion that they both attend an Ireland game and a NI game at the Euros together
Foster went to watch Ireland? Or Scotland?
What did they do to deserve that?
As for a UI the main thing putting people off in Ireland is economic reasons, mainly because the North has been sucking on the British teat for so long and because the people there don't want to lose their vast financial subsidy!
Ha, cheers and fair play. I've used the freed-up time to go for a daily cycle, which has been very beneficial for body and mind, although I do plan on keeping that up.
There was a poll last July which found that two thirds of southern voters would back unity tomorrow if it was on the table: http://www.thejournal.ie/united-irel...01609-Jul2016/Opinion polls, sure. But the thing is, there's never been an election (or referendum) result that mandates a Southern government to start negotiating for even a limited redraw of the border. As I sometimes mention, it hasn't moved a metric mile (or indeed inch) away from Puckoon since 1925. Southern voters want a united Ireland until it becomes more than a notional possibility, at which point I still think they're likely to get cold feet. You're not alone, most Southern (and Northern Nationalist) commentators shy away from this possibility.
I'm still not sure what I'm side-stepping though.
Knowing GR's weakness for a cryptic wind-up, I'm guessing he meant she went (sort of indirectly) to watch Poland?Foster went to watch Ireland? Or Scotland?
What did they do to deserve that?
David McWilliams soundly dismantled the economic case for partition/unionism in a prospective piece he wrote just before the Brexit referendum: http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/0...t-write-it-offAs for a UI the main thing putting people off in Ireland is economic reasons, mainly because the North has been sucking on the British teat for so long and because the people there don't want to lose their vast financial subsidy!
An in-depth analysis by another economist, Michael Burke, found that unity could benefit the island by €35.6 billion over eight years: http://prcg.com/wp-content/uploads/2...ion-Report.pdf
Indeed. After the game, my party avoided the overfull Irish bars and had an agreeable dinner with some Polish yuppies, during which there was a wide-ranging discussion on Brexit. The only slight embarrassment was when the waiter assumed the Poles wanted a round of beers before they'd had a chance to ask for the wine list
Thanks for those, good reading for a series of long journeys on Thursday.David McWilliams soundly dismantled the economic case for partition/unionism...An in-depth analysis by another economist, Michael Burke
You've partly answered the sidestep point, fair dos. Did the poll put the question in terms of a 40% increase to population, many of whom would be truculent at best? Show that and I'll drop the charge...
Last edited by Gather round; 24/01/2017 at 6:00 PM.
Ah, sorry to disappoint, but I'm pretty sure you'll have read them before as I posted them here earlier in the thread and you didn't seem too enamoured.
I'd imagine most people in the south are knowledgeable and well-educated enough to know that unity will entail merging with another two million or so people presently residing in another jurisdiction, just over half of whom would identify as British/unionist and may not be too keen on the idea of unity right now. That's just basic Irish history/knowledge, no?You've partly answered the sidestep point, fair dos. Did the poll put the question in terms of a 40% increase to population, many of whom would be truculent at best? Show that and I'll drop the charge...
For what it's worth, there's further info on the poll and the question posed here: http://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-conten...oll-Report.pdf
I think the significant thing about this poll is that a very considerable majority would support unity right now; usually when people express positive sentiment for unity in these types of polls, it's a distant desire for a vague emotional or romantic concept. That's why I think Brexit is a game-changer. The above poll was conducted shortly after the Brexit referendum and people in the south have clearly reacted to the abrupt change of situation and mood in the north. Southerners and nationalists in the north are now taking the idea of unity in the short-term, as an antidote to Brexit, very seriously.
On the other hand polling before referenda often indicates one outcome but the campaign can crystallise things in unpredictable ways.
Interesting that 21% of SF supporters would not vote for a United Ireland.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
I recall that cross-border survey done in 2015 asked the "Do you support Irish unification?" question and then "Do you support Irish unification if it would result in increased taxation?" and there was a noticeable drop between answers that's telling. When dealing with reunification as a distant abstract ideas Irish people take a romantic course and are all for it, but if it every was seriously put to a vote, it wouldn't take all that much for many people to be put off, especially if fears of an economic horror show or violent Unionist resistance became part of the narrative.
I still think it would pass in the south, and wouldn't even be especially close. The SSM vote showed the electorate can decisively ignore negative campaigning on occasion. But I doubt it would be a 60+% landslide affair.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks