Yugoslavia. R.I.P.

[CollegeTillIDie]

How can there be animosity between the two greatest nations on earth!

There isn't China and India have excellent diplomatic relations

[Closed Account 2]

Also easier opposition for our clubs in Europe if any of our clubs are drawn against their clubs -sweet

Just a sec, are we talking about the Corkonian Republic or Montenegro here ?

[Dassa]

Altough montenegro may not have much current say on its ruling, i would say for those people its enough to now have your own country and a sense of belonging. If people in majority vote for independance it has to be accepted.

[lopez]

...If people in majority vote for independance it has to be accepted.

By this statement you surely must agree that there is a legitimate right for a 32 county Irish republic to exist where Unionists can either like it or....... well, in the phrase once used by The Sun, to refer to British born blacks who dared to protest against Zola Budd representing Britain, 'go back to your homelands.'

[Dassa]

By this statement you surely must agree that there is a legitimate right for a 32 county Irish republic to exist where Unionists can either like it or....... well, in the phrase once used by The Sun, to refer to British born blacks who dared to protest against Zola Budd representing Britain, 'go back to your homelands.'

Once again always goes back to same UI argument. If the majority of people in NI vote for UI I will accept it in the same way as peaceful Republicans accept the current set up.

[lopez]

Once again always goes back to same UI argument. If the majority of people in NI vote for UI I will accept it in the same way as peaceful Republicans accept the current set up.

The majority of the country of Ireland voted in the 1919 election, in the absence of a plebiscite, for some form of separation on the lines at the very least that enjoyed by Australia and Canada. Despite this Britain partitioned the country, not least because of the threats made by Unionists who refused to accept democracy. Indeed, looking at the present scenario, I doubt that even if - and it's a big IF - the majority of the North voted for a UI in the future, unionists would once more look to carving up NI.

To cut to the chase, nation-breaking is a very select art. Iraq is another place prime for dissolution but such a scenario doesn't fit with either the occupiers or their chums (Turkey), never mind what the people say. Saying that I'm sticking to the view that countries that have had a nice peaceful relationship (Ireland isn't one of these countries; at no time in its history did anyone representing anybody else except a plantocracy voted to join a 'United Kingdom') with the country they've been united with for decades or centuries should not be allowed to bow out with a slim majority just because they will get fast tracked into the EU or that they've found oil and don't fancy sharing any of it. The majority must be overwhelming; at least 66% but I'd personally put it at 75%.

[Dassa]

I accept that ireland was once United politically, but it is no longer, NI is nearly 100 years old. times change. Im sure Unionists (Im not one) would protest against UI in the same manner that nationalists(looking UI) currently protest against the Union. there are many examples around the world of changes to nations and many will occur in the future.

Also this idea that Unionist wouldnt accept democracy. maybe true but that would be to ignore the fears That they had of the powerful church-state that may have occured and which did in ROI.

[lopez]

...Also this idea that Unionist wouldnt accept democracy. maybe true but that would be to ignore the fears That they had of the powerful church-state that may have occured and which did in ROI.

I've always agreed with that argument. The ROI was church dominated and it's de facto President, and author of most of the Irish consitution, His (Dis)grace John McQuaid wanted to turn it into a Catholic Iran. It is no longer that way and McQuaid's iterference would have been seriously more curtailed by a strong Protestant minority. I think that Unionism also had at it's heart economic arguments as much as ethnic and religious concerns.

[Dassa]

well for what ever reason, the island is now two countries. With the right of NI to decide were there future lies just like the montenegrans were allowed to decide on their future.

[dcfcsteve]

The majority of the country of Ireland voted in the 1919 election, in the absence of a plebiscite, for some form of separation on the lines at the very least that enjoyed by Australia and Canada. Despite this Britain partitioned the country, not least because of the threats made by Unionists who refused to accept democracy. Indeed, looking at the present scenario, I doubt that even if - and it's a big IF - the majority of the North voted for a UI in the future, unionists would once more look to carving up NI.

To cut to the chase, nation-breaking is a very select art. Iraq is another place prime for dissolution but such a scenario doesn't fit with either the occupiers or their chums (Turkey), never mind what the people say. Saying that I'm sticking to the view that countries that have had a nice peaceful relationship (Ireland isn't one of these countries; at no time in its history did anyone representing anybody else except a plantocracy voted to join a 'United Kingdom') with the country they've been united with for decades or centuries should not be allowed to bow out with a slim majority just because they will get fast tracked into the EU or that they've found oil and don't fancy sharing any of it. The majority must be overwhelming; at least 66% but I'd personally put it at 75%.

1919 was 87 years ago Lopez. Unless you're willing to share your time-machine with the rest of us, we're stuck with the current constitutional arrangeemts re the North.

Harping back to what happened generations ago, when horse-drawn buses/trams were a common sight and the TV and international air-travel weren't even featuring in the dreams of mad men, is just ludicrous.

[CollegeTillIDie]

1919 was 87 years ago Lopez. Unless you're willing to share your time-machine with the rest of us, we're stuck with the current constitutional arrangeemts re the North.

Harping back to what happened generations ago, when horse-drawn buses/trams were a common sight and the TV and international air-travel weren't even featuring in the dreams of mad men, is just ludicrous.

The Treaty of Versailles was implemented that self same year and it's impact is still being felt. John Logie Baird invented television already by this date. Using your own argument.... 1690 was even longer ago but the impact of events that year is still being felt annually!

[CollegeTillIDie]

The majority of the country of Ireland voted in the 1919 election, in the absence of a plebiscite, for some form of separation on the lines at the very least that enjoyed by Australia and Canada. Despite this Britain partitioned the country, not least because of the threats made by Unionists who refused to accept democracy. Indeed, looking at the present scenario, I doubt that even if - and it's a big IF - the majority of the North voted for a UI in the future, unionists would once more look to carving up NI.

To cut to the chase, nation-breaking is a very select art. Iraq is another place prime for dissolution but such a scenario doesn't fit with either the occupiers or their chums (Turkey), never mind what the people say. Saying that I'm sticking to the view that countries that have had a nice peaceful relationship (Ireland isn't one of these countries; at no time in its history did anyone representing anybody else except a plantocracy voted to join a 'United Kingdom') with the country they've been united with for decades or centuries should not be allowed to bow out with a slim majority just because they will get fast tracked into the EU or that they've found oil and don't fancy sharing any of it. The majority must be overwhelming; at least 66% but I'd personally put it at 75%.

The British Parliament itself was a property owners club exclusively until the Third Reform Bill which wasn't passed until Gladstone's time in the late 1880's.
The plain punter in Britain did not have the vote until early in the 20th Century when universal sufferage was introduced and women had to go through hoops to get the vote. So by no means can the Act Of Union decision of 1800 be deemed to have been in any real way democratic.

[lopez]

Harping back to what happened generations ago, when horse-drawn buses/trams were a common sight and the TV and international air-travel weren't even featuring in the dreams of mad men, is just ludicrous.

What's ludicrous is your statement, even more so as you are discussing a subject which, not as you point out, has its origins in the treaty of Versailles (The Croatian, Slovenian, Bosnian and Vojvodina constituents of the FYR were created at the Treaty of St. Germain and Trianon which dealt with Austria and Hungary respectively: Germany (Versailles) never lost any land to Yugoslavia) but in a plebiscite where the people (who were eligible I confess I do not know) freely voted to dump their king and join the union. In the case of Montenegro, noone forced them to join Yugoslavia against their will.

My point with Dassa (presuming incorrectly that he was a unionist, which I must add there is absolutely nothing wrong there, because I too am a unionist in not wanting chunks of either the country I live in or the country I'm a citizen of being broken up and ruled by chancers) is that this same argument is sidelined by certain people. Yes I know it was all a long, long time ago, and yes we have a constitutional agreement implemented, but it still doesn't mean that partition was justified.

The British Parliament itself was a property owners club exclusively until the Third Reform Bill which wasn't passed until Gladstone's time in the late 1880's.
The plain punter in Britain did not have the vote until early in the 20th Century when universal sufferage was introduced and women had to go through hoops to get the vote. So by no means can the Act Of Union decision of 1800 be deemed to have been in any real way democratic.

The expansion and incorporation of most nation states was done on behalf of unelected elites. I can't say that this justifies having referendums in every former kingdom across Europe like Kent or Mercia in England for example. Basques and Catalans were never invaded by Castille, despite what anybody says. These kingdoms were incorporated into a greater Spain by elites, and the vast majority of serfs and then citizens peacefully accepted the situation at least until the Spanish Civil War.

[Dassa]

there arent many who were born in a UI now alive, Partition happened. I care very deeply about being Northern Irish now. I completely accept that if it hadnt occured I may now feel that pride in Ireland (32 county) but I dont. The wrong or rights of whats great grandparents did are of little concern to me and I have no interest in Unification of Ireland. It could have been different but for the incorporation of religion with a feeling of nationalism by both nationalities and religions. It happened NI is a country now and the people of NI like Montenegro will decide their future,cant live in the past.

[Gather round]

Lopez, does your time machine go forwards and do you hire out? I only want to go as far as July 10, to see if that €5 I spent backing Serbia etc. at 100/1 was wasted.

You're right about the end of Church domination. I read in a paper last week (Indo, I think) that only four priests were ordained in the Republic in 2004.

[lopez]

Lopez, does your time machine go forwards...?

It does....

...I only want to go as far as July 10, to see if that €5 I spent backing Serbia etc. at 100/1 was wasted.

...and it is.

[dcfcsteve]

My point with Dassa (presuming incorrectly that he was a unionist, which I must add there is absolutely nothing wrong there, because I too am a unionist in not wanting chunks of either the country I live in or the country I'm a citizen of being broken up and ruled by chancers) is that this same argument is sidelined by certain people. Yes I know it was all a long, long time ago, and yes we have a constitutional agreement implemented, but it still doesn't mean that partition was justified.

I'm not sure which part of my post even came close to suggesting that partition was justified, but to address the posts of yourself and CTID - partition did happen, many, many years ago, and we're dealing with the consequences now.

Ireland would probably be a much simpler place politically had it not happened. Hell - we might even all get on now if it didn't, but it did happen and we have to deal with the reality of the situation. Acknowledging that you have to get on with living within the confines of the reality of life doesn't in anyway even imply that you are therefore justifying everything that happens in life.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Lopez, does your time machine go forwards and do you hire out? I only want to go as far as July 10, to see if that €5 I spent backing Serbia etc. at 100/1 was wasted.

Gather round

If Serbia-Montenegro can get out of the group, you will get great value for your bet . They have the best defence in Europe, one of the better keepers and in 6 foot 7 inch striker Nicola Zigic, my dark horse for surprise packet of the World Cup.

[Partizan]

http://antiwar.com/malic/

The hypocrisy by the US/EU/UN/NATO is spellbinding.

[anto eile]

aw poor sebia, losing control over more land it shouldnt occupy
and theres no simple "good guys" in serbia. theyve massacring each other for years.the whole region is a mess