I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
Thanks; thought-provoking post. It's odd about Iberia, isn't it; AIUI, simply falls back to local loyalties as the Moors were driven back toward Andalucia. And reading Forgotten Kingdom and similar reminds one of the fluidity of 'national' borders, particularly in Eastern Europe. Compare and contrast a map of Eastern Europe, especially showing Germany and Poland today with a pre-WWII one. Did everyone move? I have, of course, to concede the point about differences between the populations across the island of Ireland, particularly in the NE, but in the 18th and 19th Centuries that was getting blurred, largely for economic reasons, and some of the significant people in Irish nationalism ate the time were Protestant.
'Did everyone move' - yes, pretty much. The mass movement of Germans back to rump Germany at the end of WW2 is interesting but little commented-on. Was it voluntary or forced? There was certainly an understandable mass-fleeing of Germans westwards as the red army advanced. Most of those who didn't flee were moved westwards at the end of the war - presumably forcibly, though the extent to which staying as a foreigner in what was now Russian-occupied Poland was an attractive option was probably minimal anyway.
The process by which a body of people comes to identify as a nation in an interesting and slightly mysterious process. Catalans never came to identify as Spaniards even 500 years after the union by marriage between Castille and Aragon. But there is no question about English identity despite the different statelets it formed from just over 1000 years ago. Yet Germans and Italians have managed to form a coherent nation despite their respective states being only a couple of hundred years old. My theory is that to form a nation what is really needed is either an oppressor or a campaign against a foreign force.
Yes; the millions of DP’s were a feature of the immediate post-war years, although I must admit I hadn’t realised it was such total Clearance. (capital intended) On reflection what was then known as East Prussia was almost completely repopulated.
Agree about ‘national identity’; is it associated with language? ‘English’ has always been fairly comprehensible to anyone between the Tweed and the Tamar, although sometimes some effort is required. Conversely, of course, Scotland is divided between two or three languages. Catalan is distinct from Spanish.
What happened after WWII was systematic and organised ethnic cleansing.
The populations were moved to match the lines on the maps.
Indeed. This is the dirty secret behind a Europe of clearly defined nation states that doesn't fight about borders anymore. Luckily the Germans have largely accepted what happened to them after WW2.
The reason for no more war in Europe
1) Eiltes who believed in war as a continuation of politics destroyed. With the death of Hitler, the last people who believed in that were dead 2) Ethnic enclaves in the "wrong" country. Fixed by expelling the minorities involves. Yes, Yugoslavia.... and look what happened there.... 3) The Americans, Russians (and to lesser extent the British and French) jointly conquered the whole of Europe and imposed a peace. Using Hitlers body as a negotiating table.
The dirty secret is that ethnic cleansing works.
The lack of it is why there's no peace in the Middle East.
Egypt and Jordan twice tried to wipe out Israel and divide the whole land of Palestine between the two of them. If they'd won either war the Jews would have been ethnically cleansed and the land would all be Jordan and Egypt and that would have been the end of the matter.
Second time around Israel took land off Egypt and Jordan and rather than expelling the Arabs to be relocated elsewhere in Egypt and Jordan they stayed in the land taken and now call themselves Palestinians.
Had Egypt and Jordan won there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing. Had Israel done the same as they'd intended there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing.
Because Israel won but didn't engage in ethnic cleansing, they're vilified around the world.
That's an inaccurate portrayal of history. There was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. This is still resented in the region today and was in large part the cause for the later conflicts.
That is quite frankly bollocks.
The Arabs that chose to stay in Israeli land became Israeli citizens. Many did move though to the new Egyptian and Jordanian territories (what is now called Palestinian land). But Israel never forced them out, if they had there'd be no large Arab minority in Israel today - and if they had forced them out of the bits of Egypt and Jordan they occupied into the rest of Egypt and Jordan there'd be no "Palestine" today.
Why scare quotes for Palestine? It's really odd. It's what the land was called before 1948.
The West Bank was Jordan and the Gaza Strip was Egypt.
Had Egypt and Jordan won either 48 or 67 there'd be no such thing as either Israel or Palestine today. All the "Palestinians" of today would be Egyptians or Jordanians.
Had Israel treated their Arab aggressors they were defending themselves from as the same way the Germans were treated in the Sudetenland there'd be no such thing as a "Palestinian" today, they'd all be Egyptians or Jordanians.
I listened to an interesting podcast recently that talked about Israel/Palestine post-1948. There were two or three episodes, and at the start of one, a British Palestinian academic (talking from the Palestinian viewpoint) talked about how Jews had been 'inspired' to migrate to Palestine in the late 1940s.
'Inspired' seemed an odd choice of words (sh*t, IMO) for a people who had just seen millions of their kin murdered for their religion.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
They don't actually, the right is significantly watered down by the border poll provisions in the GFA.
Only if Nationalist parties combined win more votes than Unionist parties combined at Stormont which is not the case now.
However even if there was a border poll and a majority for a United Ireland Protestant dominated Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept Dublin rule
Antrim will fight ... and Antrim will be wrong
No it would be right to declare UDI and I would fully support it if it had its wish to stay in the UK ignored.
Independence is fine. Doesn't mean we have to take them though. England should get a vote too.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
I'd instead favour not locking down - the consequence of not being vaccinated is that the rest of the country will no longer put life on hold to help you.
But the hospitals are filling up with Covid patients, so routine surgeries are being cancelled. Vaccinated people are suffering because of the unvaccinated.
Whilst that is undoubtedly a part of the response the problem is that the unvaccinated are clogging up our hospitals and preventing us from getting treatment for other things. What do we do about that consequence of their selfishness and stupidity?
If an alcoholic gets cirrhosis of the liver then they'll only get on the transplant list if they give up alcohol. The obese are made to jump through all sorts of hoops if they wish to get bariatric surgery or similar. And so on. Liberty means having the right to make your own choices, it doesn't mean those choices being consequence-free. If the unvaccinated have to face consequences for their choices then that's their own choice.
And others...
All good points. However, what do we want to achieve? Punish the unvaccinated or encourage take-up? The unvaccinated are either hardcore anti-vax or believe themselves to be a low risk. I don't think threatening to withdraw care would have much effect on those who consider themselves invincible - if they're not scared of Covid then it's not going to help. It's a bit like saying to teenagers they won't receive treatment if they take an illegal drug - it's not going to change behaviour because the personal risk is perceived to be (and is) small.
I think carrot and/or stick more useful - either use vaccine passports to make life a right pain for the unvaccinated (but this also inconveniences everyone else) or bribe people to get vaccinated (also apply retrospectively to those vaccinated). Costs would be manageable compared to NHS chaos or another vaccination.
I was never in the "it's no worse than flu" brigade, but I do think it might be instructive to have daily flu updates too, if we keep daily covid updates. Even the current figures are in line with a bad flu season, I would think? Of course, the current figures may get much worse before they get better, but comparison would help give some context.
How many does flu put in intensive care for weeks at a time, though ? That's why the NHS is a bit panicked for this winter.
Yep, good point. I think we'd be crazy to bring back restrictions to avert Covid deaths this winter, but there does come a point where restrictions could make sense to limit NHS load in the short term. However, we do need to have a long term view on that. This winter and that's it, well maybe that's doable- but how do we ensure that? More and better vaccinations? More infections providing natural protection? If what we're looking at is instead this problem every winter then instead we need to build the capacity to deal with it. Dust off the Nightingale facilities and have Covid cases outside of mainstream hospitals. Expensive and hard, but preferable to restrictions every winter.
We are just going to have to gear up hospitals to cope with transmissible diseases again. We haven't had to do that in probably 70 years, other than in the young, the elderly and those who visit developing countries. Yes we may need fever hospitals again.
If we are to have any restrictions introduced it should be vaccine passports for hospitals.
Send the unvaccinated to Nightingales.
Radical idea. I'm instinctively against vaxports because once the door to "your papers please" is open its hard to close again. But, once you are in the NHS system your records are everything. So how we get treated inside hospital is very different to how we get treated going into a restaurant.
There seems to be a pretty simple and brutal truth to deaths vs jabs. If you get jabbed you are unlucky to die. If you don't you are in the lap of the gods. So yes, a separate system to divert the unvaxxed away from the healthy, I can see an argument there.
Not saying I agree with it yet. But I am saying that we need to have a government finding ways to hammer the get vaxxed message, and "no jab = you're on your own" is certainly one way to do that...
No, that's healthcare policy based on moral judgment. It opens the door to "no treatment for lung cancer if you're a smoker", "we'll leave you bleeding by the roadside if you drink and drive", and "no treatment for STIs if you didn't practice safe sex".
No its rationing our available capacity.
We already tell alcoholics they have hoops to go through to get treatment. Drink and you can't get a new liver. We already tell the obese they have hoops to go through to get treatment too. You can't just turn up at A&E and demand bariatric surgery.
I hope no restrictions ever become necessary again, but given that the unvaccinated are scientifically proven to be a bigger risk to others (as they are not only more likely to have Covid, but they excrete a higher dose of it too) there's medical justification for risk segregation too if the NHS capacity becomes reached.
If anyone doesn't want to take their chances, there's a simple solution.
There’s a huge philosophical difference.
Withholding treatment from ongoing alcoholics is because it undermines the likely success of the treatment. It means resources (ie a scarce liver) could be better used elsewhere. It makes no judgement on *why* they need a new liver
If it wasn't for the sodding antivaxxers and denialists (there's a huge overlap between those groups), this would have been over by now.
HART pressuring the JCVI and MPs, bringing the CRG onside and spewing their misinformation and fearmongering into the mdeia, ably assisted by Julia Hartley-Brewer and Toby Young.
Hesitation by the Government and JCVI, a belated decision and even more belated overruling, tentative and slow movement on the vaccination of 12-15s and incompetence in rolling out the boosters.
Other countries have completed their 12-15 rollout by now, and we were at the front of the vaccine rollout field; there's no excuse for it, and the rampant infections in secondary school ages which are driving the entire thing wouldn't exist.
Delusional wankers pushing their ignorant fantasies and too many frightened people accepting them without applying any coherent thought.
Thanks, antivaxxers and lockdown sceptics. Thanks so bloody much. We were free and clear and you've fucked it all up for all of us. Well sodding done.
There were always going to be antivaxxers. We knew this.
We have vaccines which are more efficacious than we dared hope for when vaccines were absent and we have a take-up far higher than envisaged. We knew vaccines wouldn't be 100% effective and some would refuse, and we still sold the vaccines as the silver bullet to ward off further authoritarian measures. We also knew that vaccines would wear off and boosters would be needed.
We need to trust the vaccines and keep to the plan.
Unfortunately there has been a well-organised misinformation campaign stoking fears and concerns, coupling with sheer denialism.
The HART leaks are pretty eye opening. Craig and co, for all their vileness, did get well organised and know where to pressure politicians and JCVI members as well as know how to get their message out into the media and amplified.
There is a free newspaper doing the rounds. The Light or summat. Claiming 40m vaccine deaths amongst other bollocks. And that any ailment subsequent to the vaccine is causal. Have had that figure quoted back at me. And blame for illness, including sepsis.
Can be darkly amusing asking them about some of the more absurd Yellow Card reports.
People need to be warned about the incidence of these: - Fetishism - Penile size reduction - Low Income - Flooding - Water pollution - Retirement - Soliloquy {now this one made me just stop for a moment] - Teething - Bed bug infestation - Spinal fracture - Verbal Abuse - Anal Sex - Kosher diet - Illiteracy - Job Dissatisfaction - Hair Injury - Tattoo - Homosexual Parent - Screaming - Hangover - Animal bite - Chlamydia
... and the rest.
Because if they're taking everything in VAERS and the Yellow Card system as definitely causally connected, I'd be very interested at the way they get the causal link to these.
This is uncharacteristically obtuse of you, Andy! The causal pathway is clear enough:
Take vaccine -> don't die of Covid -> survive long enough for those things to happen
A significant minority of the reporters would not have (been alive long enough to have) experienced those things if they had not got vaccinated
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
By 'ended' I assume you mean by Protestant terrorism. Whether that happens or not - and I am not sure either way whether it would - it won't change the basic geopolitical reality. The 6 Counties will formally be reunited with the rest of Ireland and a tiny minority of irreconcilables which make a name for themselves as extremists. The end result will still be the same - they will lose - just unfortunately with more avoidable deaths
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
If the Protestants lose a border poll then Protestant Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept direct rule from Dublin with the full support of me and most of the Tory right.
I'd instead favour not locking down - the consequence of not being vaccinated is that the rest of the country will no longer put life on hold to help you.
But the hospitals are filling up with Covid patients, so routine surgeries are being cancelled. Vaccinated people are suffering because of the unvaccinated.
Whilst that is undoubtedly a part of the response the problem is that the unvaccinated are clogging up our hospitals and preventing us from getting treatment for other things. What do we do about that consequence of their selfishness and stupidity?
If an alcoholic gets cirrhosis of the liver then they'll only get on the transplant list if they give up alcohol. The obese are made to jump through all sorts of hoops if they wish to get bariatric surgery or similar. And so on. Liberty means having the right to make your own choices, it doesn't mean those choices being consequence-free. If the unvaccinated have to face consequences for their choices then that's their own choice.
And others...
All good points. However, what do we want to achieve? Punish the unvaccinated or encourage take-up? The unvaccinated are either hardcore anti-vax or believe themselves to be a low risk. I don't think threatening to withdraw care would have much effect on those who consider themselves invincible - if they're not scared of Covid then it's not going to help. It's a bit like saying to teenagers they won't receive treatment if they take an illegal drug - it's not going to change behaviour because the personal risk is perceived to be (and is) small.
I think carrot and/or stick more useful - either use vaccine passports to make life a right pain for the unvaccinated (but this also inconveniences everyone else) or bribe people to get vaccinated (also apply retrospectively to those vaccinated). Costs would be manageable compared to NHS chaos or another vaccination.
I was never in the "it's no worse than flu" brigade, but I do think it might be instructive to have daily flu updates too, if we keep daily covid updates. Even the current figures are in line with a bad flu season, I would think? Of course, the current figures may get much worse before they get better, but comparison would help give some context.
How many does flu put in intensive care for weeks at a time, though ? That's why the NHS is a bit panicked for this winter.
Yep, good point. I think we'd be crazy to bring back restrictions to avert Covid deaths this winter, but there does come a point where restrictions could make sense to limit NHS load in the short term. However, we do need to have a long term view on that. This winter and that's it, well maybe that's doable- but how do we ensure that? More and better vaccinations? More infections providing natural protection? If what we're looking at is instead this problem every winter then instead we need to build the capacity to deal with it. Dust off the Nightingale facilities and have Covid cases outside of mainstream hospitals. Expensive and hard, but preferable to restrictions every winter.
We are just going to have to gear up hospitals to cope with transmissible diseases again. We haven't had to do that in probably 70 years, other than in the young, the elderly and those who visit developing countries. Yes we may need fever hospitals again.
If we are to have any restrictions introduced it should be vaccine passports for hospitals.
Send the unvaccinated to Nightingales.
Radical idea. I'm instinctively against vaxports because once the door to "your papers please" is open its hard to close again. But, once you are in the NHS system your records are everything. So how we get treated inside hospital is very different to how we get treated going into a restaurant.
There seems to be a pretty simple and brutal truth to deaths vs jabs. If you get jabbed you are unlucky to die. If you don't you are in the lap of the gods. So yes, a separate system to divert the unvaxxed away from the healthy, I can see an argument there.
Not saying I agree with it yet. But I am saying that we need to have a government finding ways to hammer the get vaxxed message, and "no jab = you're on your own" is certainly one way to do that...
No, that's healthcare policy based on moral judgment. It opens the door to "no treatment for lung cancer if you're a smoker", "we'll leave you bleeding by the roadside if you drink and drive", and "no treatment for STIs if you didn't practice safe sex".
No its rationing our available capacity.
We already tell alcoholics they have hoops to go through to get treatment. Drink and you can't get a new liver. We already tell the obese they have hoops to go through to get treatment too. You can't just turn up at A&E and demand bariatric surgery.
I hope no restrictions ever become necessary again, but given that the unvaccinated are scientifically proven to be a bigger risk to others (as they are not only more likely to have Covid, but they excrete a higher dose of it too) there's medical justification for risk segregation too if the NHS capacity becomes reached.
If anyone doesn't want to take their chances, there's a simple solution.
There’s a huge philosophical difference.
Withholding treatment from ongoing alcoholics is because it undermines the likely success of the treatment. It means resources (ie a scarce liver) could be better used elsewhere. It makes no judgement on *why* they need a new liver
It's not much withholding treatment, but prioritising limited resources.
If there were infinite available livers, and infinite resources to transplant them, then the alcoholics would get a new liver..... As long as the clinical judgement of the doctor was that the transplant would be likely to work for them.....
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
If the Protestants lose a border poll then Protestant Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept direct rule from Dublin with the full support of me and most of the Tory right.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
They don't actually, the right is significantly watered down by the border poll provisions in the GFA.
Only if Nationalist parties combined win more votes than Unionist parties combined at Stormont which is not the case now.
However even if there was a border poll and a majority for a United Ireland Protestant dominated Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept Dublin rule
Antrim will fight ... and Antrim will be wrong
No it would be right to declare UDI and I would fully support it if it had its wish to stay in the UK ignored.
Hang on. You're the nutter who has spent months telling us how wrong the Catalans are to be pushing for peaceful independence and you are advocating an armed rebellion against what would be a lawfully agreed arrangement with the support of the majority of Northern Ireland? (It can't happen without that)
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
A somewhat less ambitious Carson is reborn Less Edward, more Frank Carson.
That's a cracker!
Just to string together a couple of today's topics..
'Carson spent three years in the British Army's Parachute Regiment, mainly in the Middle East in the late 1940s. During his service he shot dead an armed Zionist terrorist.'
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
By 'ended' I assume you mean by Protestant terrorism. Whether that happens or not - and I am not sure either way whether it would - it won't change the basic geopolitical reality. The 6 Counties will formally be reunited with the rest of Ireland and a tiny minority of irreconcilables which make a name for themselves as extremists. The end result will still be the same - they will lose - just unfortunately with more avoidable deaths
Already Loyalists are stepping up marches and protests and there have been attacks on customs officials over the Irish Sea border. Impose direct rule from Dublin on them too then yes loyalist paramilitaries would return to violence. Hence Antrim declaring UDI would be the best solution for all in that circumstance if a border poll voted for a United Ireland in the rest of NI.
They would not lose either as they would have the majority of the Protestant Antrim population behind them
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
They don't actually, the right is significantly watered down by the border poll provisions in the GFA.
Only if Nationalist parties combined win more votes than Unionist parties combined at Stormont which is not the case now.
However even if there was a border poll and a majority for a United Ireland Protestant dominated Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept Dublin rule
Antrim will fight ... and Antrim will be wrong
No it would be right to declare UDI and I would fully support it if it had its wish to stay in the UK ignored.
Hang on. You're the nutter who has spent months telling us how wrong the Catalans are to be pushing for peaceful independence and you are advocating an armed rebellion against what would be a lawfully agreed arrangement with the support of the majority of Northern Ireland? (It can't happen without that)
There are of course separatist terrorist groups in Spain eg ETA too.
However yes the Spanish constitution prevents a UDI declaration by Catalonia there is no constitutional block on an Antrim UDI. For if it left the UK after a NI border poll vote to leave the UK and declared UDI then the GFA and UK law would no longer apply to it and it would have declared UDI before Irish law could be imposed on it
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
If the Protestants lose a border poll then Protestant Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept direct rule from Dublin with the full support of me and most of the Tory right.
followed shortly after by
Hmmm - might need a wading kit for the Covenanter tank.....
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
By 'ended' I assume you mean by Protestant terrorism. Whether that happens or not - and I am not sure either way whether it would - it won't change the basic geopolitical reality. The 6 Counties will formally be reunited with the rest of Ireland and a tiny minority of irreconcilables which make a name for themselves as extremists. The end result will still be the same - they will lose - just unfortunately with more avoidable deaths
Already Loyalists are stepping up marches and protests and there have been attacks on customs officials over the Irish Sea border. Impose direct rule from Dublin on them too then yes loyalist paramilitaries would return to violence. Hence Antrim declaring UDI would be the best solution for all in that circumstance if a border poll voted for a United Ireland in the rest of NI.
They would not lose either as they would have the majority of the Protestant Antrim population behind them
Almost inevitable I would say. Either going to be a crisis in the NHS that prompts it, or the inevitable new variant. They haven't exactly been telling people to "be careful" or "take responsibility", which is going to make it harder to justify new restrictions.
There have been a lot of infections since Delta came along and no new variant. Delta might be an evolutionary endpoint for the virus. As optimised as it can get.
I think it's hard to see how the number of Covid patients will quadruple from here, to rival the peak of last winter, so I think they will resist new restrictions.
But it will mean that the NHS falls several more months behind.
There are off course lots of different versions of delta too - there was information about a different lineage that is about 6% of delta cases in the UK. Delta being so infectious means its hard for other variants to get a hold, hence its complete dominance in the UK. Where diseases can go is to get even more infectious, but at the expense of being less severe, and this has probably happened to a lot of the viruses that are endemic now. Initially severe illness causing, with time and increased population exposure they become much milder.
Interesting on the radio this morning to hear that most people in hospital and ICU with covid are unvaccinated. I would be announcing this every hour on the hour, every news bulletin. I would have images of people who were unvaccinated and died of covid. The vaccine is there, get it, don't die of covid.
If that's so then we either run out of anti-vaxxers to go to hospital or we stop anti-vaxxers being treated in hospital.
Because anti-vaxxers are going to get infected.
Yes they are, and I have stated many times that I believe the government/SAGE is 'happy' with high cases because it is getting to the un-vaxxed. They are helping to reach HIT by recovering from infection.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
If the Protestants lose a border poll then Protestant Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept direct rule from Dublin with the full support of me and most of the Tory right.
Not this member of the right. Or many others that I know, many of whom would be happy to get rid of a province that almost put Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street in 2017, until they were heavily bribed not to.
We will be a happier, wealthier and more United Kingdom once the festering boil that is Northern Ireland is removed.
Almost inevitable I would say. Either going to be a crisis in the NHS that prompts it, or the inevitable new variant. They haven't exactly been telling people to "be careful" or "take responsibility", which is going to make it harder to justify new restrictions.
There have been a lot of infections since Delta came along and no new variant. Delta might be an evolutionary endpoint for the virus. As optimised as it can get.
I think it's hard to see how the number of Covid patients will quadruple from here, to rival the peak of last winter, so I think they will resist new restrictions.
But it will mean that the NHS falls several more months behind.
There are off course lots of different versions of delta too - there was information about a different lineage that is about 6% of delta cases in the UK. Delta being so infectious means its hard for other variants to get a hold, hence its complete dominance in the UK. Where diseases can go is to get even more infectious, but at the expense of being less severe, and this has probably happened to a lot of the viruses that are endemic now. Initially severe illness causing, with time and increased population exposure they become much milder.
Interesting on the radio this morning to hear that most people in hospital and ICU with covid are unvaccinated. I would be announcing this every hour on the hour, every news bulletin. I would have images of people who were unvaccinated and died of covid. The vaccine is there, get it, don't die of covid.
If that's so then we either run out of anti-vaxxers to go to hospital or we stop anti-vaxxers being treated in hospital.
Because anti-vaxxers are going to get infected.
Yes they are, and I have stated many times that I believe the government/SAGE is 'happy' with high cases because it is getting to the un-vaxxed. They are helping to reach HIT by recovering from infection.
i.e. back to the old plan, same as the new plan.
But with the big difference of the vaccines. We have transitioned from a CFR of 1-3% (? not sure) to one of about 0.3% so can now 'tolerate' much higher case numbers. And if you won't get the jab, you will get covid.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
By 'ended' I assume you mean by Protestant terrorism. Whether that happens or not - and I am not sure either way whether it would - it won't change the basic geopolitical reality. The 6 Counties will formally be reunited with the rest of Ireland and a tiny minority of irreconcilables which make a name for themselves as extremists. The end result will still be the same - they will lose - just unfortunately with more avoidable deaths
Already Loyalists are stepping up marches and protests and there have been attacks on customs officials over the Irish Sea border. Impose direct rule from Dublin on them too then yes loyalist paramilitaries would return to violence. Hence Antrim declaring UDI would be the best solution for all in that circumstance if a border poll voted for a United Ireland in the rest of NI.
They would not lose either as they would have the majority of the Protestant Antrim population behind them
LOL.
And if not then they would at least have the majority of Carrickfergus behind them. And if not then they would at least have the majority of Milebush behind them And if not they would at least have most of Oakland Crescent behind them And if not they would at least have Number 43 behind them.
Well most of them. Grandpa is sound but Ma is a bit unsure.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
By 'ended' I assume you mean by Protestant terrorism. Whether that happens or not - and I am not sure either way whether it would - it won't change the basic geopolitical reality. The 6 Counties will formally be reunited with the rest of Ireland and a tiny minority of irreconcilables which make a name for themselves as extremists. The end result will still be the same - they will lose - just unfortunately with more avoidable deaths
Already Loyalists are stepping up marches and protests and there have been attacks on customs officials over the Irish Sea border. Impose direct rule from Dublin on them too then yes loyalist paramilitaries would return to violence. Hence Antrim declaring UDI would be the best solution for all in that circumstance if a border poll voted for a United Ireland in the rest of NI.
They would not lose either as they would have the majority of the Protestant Antrim population behind them
Aspiring Tory MP approves of terrorism!
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter but a UDI would remove the need for any paramilitary violence over Dublin rule
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
By 'ended' I assume you mean by Protestant terrorism. Whether that happens or not - and I am not sure either way whether it would - it won't change the basic geopolitical reality. The 6 Counties will formally be reunited with the rest of Ireland and a tiny minority of irreconcilables which make a name for themselves as extremists. The end result will still be the same - they will lose - just unfortunately with more avoidable deaths
Already Loyalists are stepping up marches and protests and there have been attacks on customs officials over the Irish Sea border. Impose direct rule from Dublin on them too then yes loyalist paramilitaries would return to violence. Hence Antrim declaring UDI would be the best solution for all in that circumstance if a border poll voted for a United Ireland in the rest of NI.
They would not lose either as they would have the majority of the Protestant Antrim population behind them
Aspiring Tory MP approves of terrorism!
Unless the terrorists are darkies in which case they should be prevented from being allowed to travel to Britain even if they are citizens which they shouldn't be anyway because they are jihadis by means of being muslim and from the wrong country (anywhere that isn't England).
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
If the Protestants lose a border poll then Protestant Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept direct rule from Dublin with the full support of me and most of the Tory right.
Not this member of the right. Or many others that I know, many of whom would be happy to get rid of a province that almost put Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street in 2017, until they were heavily bribed not to.
We will be a happier, wealthier and more United Kingdom once the festering boil that is Northern Ireland is removed.
Wrong and of course without the DUP supporting May in 2017 Corbyn would have become PM.
An independent Antrim should be allowed to join the UK if Northern Ireland joins the Republic so long as homosexuality becomes mandatory for every adult in Antrim.
Almost inevitable I would say. Either going to be a crisis in the NHS that prompts it, or the inevitable new variant. They haven't exactly been telling people to "be careful" or "take responsibility", which is going to make it harder to justify new restrictions.
There have been a lot of infections since Delta came along and no new variant. Delta might be an evolutionary endpoint for the virus. As optimised as it can get.
I think it's hard to see how the number of Covid patients will quadruple from here, to rival the peak of last winter, so I think they will resist new restrictions.
But it will mean that the NHS falls several more months behind.
There are off course lots of different versions of delta too - there was information about a different lineage that is about 6% of delta cases in the UK. Delta being so infectious means its hard for other variants to get a hold, hence its complete dominance in the UK. Where diseases can go is to get even more infectious, but at the expense of being less severe, and this has probably happened to a lot of the viruses that are endemic now. Initially severe illness causing, with time and increased population exposure they become much milder.
Interesting on the radio this morning to hear that most people in hospital and ICU with covid are unvaccinated. I would be announcing this every hour on the hour, every news bulletin. I would have images of people who were unvaccinated and died of covid. The vaccine is there, get it, don't die of covid.
If that's so then we either run out of anti-vaxxers to go to hospital or we stop anti-vaxxers being treated in hospital.
Because anti-vaxxers are going to get infected.
Yes they are, and I have stated many times that I believe the government/SAGE is 'happy' with high cases because it is getting to the un-vaxxed. They are helping to reach HIT by recovering from infection.
i.e. back to the old plan, same as the new plan.
It's a different thing - an acceptance of the new reality.
All that eternal lockdown (say) would achieve is to spread out the infections in the 10% or so who won't get vaccinated.
I remember some people getting upset when I pointed out that, pre Delta, that we were very unlikely to reach herd immunity through vaccination. Unless we vaccinated everyone - including children. Post Delta that is even more true.
Lockdown would require reintroduction of furlough and that is not going to happen, ergo no lockdown. I think the most we'll see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and vaccine passports for indoor socialising. More than that and it starts to cost money and Rishi has made it pretty clear that no more money is available for this.
I do not expect - or think we will need - lockdown. What I expect / hope is that they encourage people to WFH where possible, social distance and wear masks when in crowded places. Just to keep a lid on it through the winter.
That is the current Winter Plan B as I understood, with the additional tool of vaccine passports (which I'm much less happy about - the current definitions possibly include Universities and that's going to be *fun* to enforce).
Anecdatum alert: we've had 1 confirmed case* here now in 4.5 weeks - and they didn't attend campus last year. I think its already done the rounds - the week after the Nov. lockdown started, reckon 20 % of our students reported having it.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
They don't actually, the right is significantly watered down by the border poll provisions in the GFA.
Only if Nationalist parties combined win more votes than Unionist parties combined at Stormont which is not the case now.
However even if there was a border poll and a majority for a United Ireland Protestant dominated Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept Dublin rule
Antrim will fight ... and Antrim will be wrong
No it would be right to declare UDI and I would fully support it if it had its wish to stay in the UK ignored.
Hang on. You're the nutter who has spent months telling us how wrong the Catalans are to be pushing for peaceful independence and you are advocating an armed rebellion against what would be a lawfully agreed arrangement with the support of the majority of Northern Ireland? (It can't happen without that)
There are of course separatist terrorist groups in Spain eg ETA too.
However yes the Spanish constitution prevents a UDI declaration by Catalonia there is no constitutional block on an Antrim UDI. For if it left the UK after a NI border poll vote to leave the UK and declared UDI then the GFA and UK law would no longer apply to it and it would have declared UDI before Irish law could be imposed on it
Almost inevitable I would say. Either going to be a crisis in the NHS that prompts it, or the inevitable new variant. They haven't exactly been telling people to "be careful" or "take responsibility", which is going to make it harder to justify new restrictions.
There have been a lot of infections since Delta came along and no new variant. Delta might be an evolutionary endpoint for the virus. As optimised as it can get.
I think it's hard to see how the number of Covid patients will quadruple from here, to rival the peak of last winter, so I think they will resist new restrictions.
But it will mean that the NHS falls several more months behind.
There are off course lots of different versions of delta too - there was information about a different lineage that is about 6% of delta cases in the UK. Delta being so infectious means its hard for other variants to get a hold, hence its complete dominance in the UK. Where diseases can go is to get even more infectious, but at the expense of being less severe, and this has probably happened to a lot of the viruses that are endemic now. Initially severe illness causing, with time and increased population exposure they become much milder.
Interesting on the radio this morning to hear that most people in hospital and ICU with covid are unvaccinated. I would be announcing this every hour on the hour, every news bulletin. I would have images of people who were unvaccinated and died of covid. The vaccine is there, get it, don't die of covid.
If that's so then we either run out of anti-vaxxers to go to hospital or we stop anti-vaxxers being treated in hospital.
Because anti-vaxxers are going to get infected.
Yes they are, and I have stated many times that I believe the government/SAGE is 'happy' with high cases because it is getting to the un-vaxxed. They are helping to reach HIT by recovering from infection.
i.e. back to the old plan, same as the new plan.
But with the big difference of the vaccines. We have transitioned from a CFR of 1-3% (? not sure) to one of about 0.3% so can now 'tolerate' much higher case numbers. And if you won't get the jab, you will get covid.
Even if you get it, we're all still probably going to get it. Just those people who have been vaccinated will suffer lesser or no symptoms.
An independent Antrim should be allowed to join the UK if Northern Ireland joins the Republic so long as homosexuality becomes mandatory for every adult in Antrim.
All of this does of course ignore the question of whether Ireland would actually want Ulster back given the North's rather heavy contingent of Neanderthal religious nutters.
Almost inevitable I would say. Either going to be a crisis in the NHS that prompts it, or the inevitable new variant. They haven't exactly been telling people to "be careful" or "take responsibility", which is going to make it harder to justify new restrictions.
There have been a lot of infections since Delta came along and no new variant. Delta might be an evolutionary endpoint for the virus. As optimised as it can get.
I think it's hard to see how the number of Covid patients will quadruple from here, to rival the peak of last winter, so I think they will resist new restrictions.
But it will mean that the NHS falls several more months behind.
There are off course lots of different versions of delta too - there was information about a different lineage that is about 6% of delta cases in the UK. Delta being so infectious means its hard for other variants to get a hold, hence its complete dominance in the UK. Where diseases can go is to get even more infectious, but at the expense of being less severe, and this has probably happened to a lot of the viruses that are endemic now. Initially severe illness causing, with time and increased population exposure they become much milder.
Interesting on the radio this morning to hear that most people in hospital and ICU with covid are unvaccinated. I would be announcing this every hour on the hour, every news bulletin. I would have images of people who were unvaccinated and died of covid. The vaccine is there, get it, don't die of covid.
If that's so then we either run out of anti-vaxxers to go to hospital or we stop anti-vaxxers being treated in hospital.
Because anti-vaxxers are going to get infected.
Yes they are, and I have stated many times that I believe the government/SAGE is 'happy' with high cases because it is getting to the un-vaxxed. They are helping to reach HIT by recovering from infection.
i.e. back to the old plan, same as the new plan.
But with the big difference of the vaccines. We have transitioned from a CFR of 1-3% (? not sure) to one of about 0.3% so can now 'tolerate' much higher case numbers. And if you won't get the jab, you will get covid.
Yes.
I think the interesting thing is that they're/we're really not comfortable with stating that this actually is part of the plan.
An independent Antrim should be allowed to join the UK if Northern Ireland joins the Republic so long as homosexuality becomes mandatory for every adult in Antrim.
All of this does of course ignore the question of whether Ireland would actually want Ulster back given the North's rather heavy contingent of religious nutters.
It will be expensive too. Sharing that cost over 65m people is a lot, lot easier than over 5m.
Lockdown would require reintroduction of furlough and that is not going to happen, ergo no lockdown. I think the most we'll see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and vaccine passports for indoor socialising. More than that and it starts to cost money and Rishi has made it pretty clear that no more money is available for this.
I do not expect - or think we will need - lockdown. What I expect / hope is that they encourage people to WFH where possible, social distance and wear masks when in crowded places. Just to keep a lid on it through the winter.
That is the current Winter Plan B as I understood, with the additional tool of vaccine passports (which I'm much less happy about - the current definitions possibly include Universities and that's going to be *fun* to enforce).
Anecdatum alert: we've had 1 confirmed case* here now in 4.5 weeks - and they didn't attend campus last year. I think its already done the rounds - the week after the Nov. lockdown started, reckon 20 % of our students reported having it.
We have one confirmed positive in our student cohort (about 16000 students). I simply do not believe that they are getting tested if they have symptoms. A colleague reports a tutee asking if he should attend a tutorial because he has the flu. My colleague told him to get tested for covid. Not sure of the outcome. The students don't want to get shut in for 10 days when they feel mostly fine, and are 'knee deep in clunge'*
An independent Antrim should be allowed to join the UK if Northern Ireland joins the Republic so long as homosexuality becomes mandatory for every adult in Antrim.
All of this does of course ignore the question of whether Ireland would actually want Ulster back given the North's rather heavy contingent of religious nutters.
It will be expensive too. Sharing that cost over 65m people is a lot, lot easier than over 5m.
The real issues for a United Ireland are -
1) Integrating the Unionists into Dublin government. Trying the 1920s again won't work 2) Social security differences. Note how many Irish people take advantage of the systems in NI, when they can. 3) Abortion.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Absent a vaccine resistant variant a new lockdown would be a further terrible indictment of Boris Johnson's handling of Covid-19.
So it won't happen (I suspect extra furlough would put the kibosh it.)
Remember the PM is happy to let the bodies pile high.
It's going to be quite a shock for lots of people when the ultimate endemic equilibrium for Covid ends up looking a lot like right now and they have tio climb off their horse and just get used to it.
Flu has a 5 to 10% annual attack rate and delta is much more infectious, so the long term outcome here is still going to be millions of cases a year, and annual deaths in the low to mid tens of thousands.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
It's an example of what I call the "Dubonnet Problem"
Some people like drinking Dubonnet neat.
Are they evil? stupid? wrong? different?
I go with the last - not my bag, but it's a free country.
Lockdown would require reintroduction of furlough and that is not going to happen, ergo no lockdown. I think the most we'll see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and vaccine passports for indoor socialising. More than that and it starts to cost money and Rishi has made it pretty clear that no more money is available for this.
I do not expect - or think we will need - lockdown. What I expect / hope is that they encourage people to WFH where possible, social distance and wear masks when in crowded places. Just to keep a lid on it through the winter.
That is the current Winter Plan B as I understood, with the additional tool of vaccine passports (which I'm much less happy about - the current definitions possibly include Universities and that's going to be *fun* to enforce).
Anecdatum alert: we've had 1 confirmed case* here now in 4.5 weeks - and they didn't attend campus last year. I think its already done the rounds - the week after the Nov. lockdown started, reckon 20 % of our students reported having it.
We have one confirmed positive in our student cohort (about 16000 students). I simply do not believe that they are getting tested if they have symptoms. A colleague reports a tutee asking if he should attend a tutorial because he has the flu. My colleague told him to get tested for covid. Not sure of the outcome. The students don't want to get shut in for 10 days when they feel mostly fine, and are 'knee deep in clunge'*
*See the Inbetweeners...
We are sticking with some strict rules here, as we have practical classes all day most days. If you have symptoms, do not attend. Get tested. Engage with the University track and trace, and the test result is followed up.
So, the * was that we'd had a few more students with some covid-adjacent symptoms. All told not to attend practicals and get tested. All came back negative.
Lockdown would require reintroduction of furlough and that is not going to happen, ergo no lockdown. I think the most we'll see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and vaccine passports for indoor socialising. More than that and it starts to cost money and Rishi has made it pretty clear that no more money is available for this.
I do not expect - or think we will need - lockdown. What I expect / hope is that they encourage people to WFH where possible, social distance and wear masks when in crowded places. Just to keep a lid on it through the winter.
That is the current Winter Plan B as I understood, with the additional tool of vaccine passports (which I'm much less happy about - the current definitions possibly include Universities and that's going to be *fun* to enforce).
Anecdatum alert: we've had 1 confirmed case* here now in 4.5 weeks - and they didn't attend campus last year. I think its already done the rounds - the week after the Nov. lockdown started, reckon 20 % of our students reported having it.
We have one confirmed positive in our student cohort (about 16000 students). I simply do not believe that they are getting tested if they have symptoms. A colleague reports a tutee asking if he should attend a tutorial because he has the flu. My colleague told him to get tested for covid. Not sure of the outcome. The students don't want to get shut in for 10 days when they feel mostly fine, and are 'knee deep in clunge'*
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
Thanks; thought-provoking post. It's odd about Iberia, isn't it; AIUI, simply falls back to local loyalties as the Moors were driven back toward Andalucia. And reading Forgotten Kingdom and similar reminds one of the fluidity of 'national' borders, particularly in Eastern Europe. Compare and contrast a map of Eastern Europe, especially showing Germany and Poland today with a pre-WWII one. Did everyone move? I have, of course, to concede the point about differences between the populations across the island of Ireland, particularly in the NE, but in the 18th and 19th Centuries that was getting blurred, largely for economic reasons, and some of the significant people in Irish nationalism ate the time were Protestant.
'Did everyone move' - yes, pretty much. The mass movement of Germans back to rump Germany at the end of WW2 is interesting but little commented-on. Was it voluntary or forced? There was certainly an understandable mass-fleeing of Germans westwards as the red army advanced. Most of those who didn't flee were moved westwards at the end of the war - presumably forcibly, though the extent to which staying as a foreigner in what was now Russian-occupied Poland was an attractive option was probably minimal anyway.
The process by which a body of people comes to identify as a nation in an interesting and slightly mysterious process. Catalans never came to identify as Spaniards even 500 years after the union by marriage between Castille and Aragon. But there is no question about English identity despite the different statelets it formed from just over 1000 years ago. Yet Germans and Italians have managed to form a coherent nation despite their respective states being only a couple of hundred years old. My theory is that to form a nation what is really needed is either an oppressor or a campaign against a foreign force.
Yes; the millions of DP’s were a feature of the immediate post-war years, although I must admit I hadn’t realised it was such total Clearance. (capital intended) On reflection what was then known as East Prussia was almost completely repopulated.
Agree about ‘national identity’; is it associated with language? ‘English’ has always been fairly comprehensible to anyone between the Tweed and the Tamar, although sometimes some effort is required. Conversely, of course, Scotland is divided between two or three languages. Catalan is distinct from Spanish.
What happened after WWII was systematic and organised ethnic cleansing.
The populations were moved to match the lines on the maps.
Indeed. This is the dirty secret behind a Europe of clearly defined nation states that doesn't fight about borders anymore. Luckily the Germans have largely accepted what happened to them after WW2.
The reason for no more war in Europe
1) Eiltes who believed in war as a continuation of politics destroyed. With the death of Hitler, the last people who believed in that were dead 2) Ethnic enclaves in the "wrong" country. Fixed by expelling the minorities involves. Yes, Yugoslavia.... and look what happened there.... 3) The Americans, Russians (and to lesser extent the British and French) jointly conquered the whole of Europe and imposed a peace. Using Hitlers body as a negotiating table.
The dirty secret is that ethnic cleansing works.
The lack of it is why there's no peace in the Middle East.
Egypt and Jordan twice tried to wipe out Israel and divide the whole land of Palestine between the two of them. If they'd won either war the Jews would have been ethnically cleansed and the land would all be Jordan and Egypt and that would have been the end of the matter.
Second time around Israel took land off Egypt and Jordan and rather than expelling the Arabs to be relocated elsewhere in Egypt and Jordan they stayed in the land taken and now call themselves Palestinians.
Had Egypt and Jordan won there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing. Had Israel done the same as they'd intended there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing.
Because Israel won but didn't engage in ethnic cleansing, they're vilified around the world.
That's an inaccurate portrayal of history. There was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. This is still resented in the region today and was in large part the cause for the later conflicts.
Absolute nonsense. All the Palestinian Arabs who wanted to stay in Israel did so, unmolested by their Jewish neighbours, and they and their descendants now form a large part of Israel's Arab minority. The refugee crisis happened in 1948 because the rest were terrified that the Jews were going to do to them what they were planning to do to the Jews if they'd won.
There was ethnic cleansing in 1948 Palestine just as there was in 1990s Yugoslavia. This should not be controversial.
It's not "controversial" - it is outright untrue. Firstly, comparing it to 1990s Yugoslavia is totally inaccurate, because there are no documented cases of Palestinians being massacred in 1948. Secondly, most of the Palestinians who were left homeless, did so "voluntarily" - either because they were forcibly evicted from their villages by their own allies in the Arab League in advance of the Israeli declaration of independence to make the (assumed) forthcoming massacre of the Jews easier to accomplish, or because, having lost the resulting war, they were scared of Israeli reprisals.
As Mr Thompson says, if the Israelis had done what the Palestinians feared they would, there wouldn't be a Palestinian refugee population today - those remaining in Gaza would have been forced into Egypt in 1948, and those in the West Bank into Jordan in 1967.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've watched The Wire and also know every scene from Love Actually (and Four Weddings And A Funeral).
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Just shows how Boris can turn anything to gold. His parody of that scene has been described on here as the greatest political broadcast in human history!
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Just shows how Boris can turn anything to gold. His parody of that scene has been described on here as the greatest political broadcast in human history!
yeah, shame he went on to lose the election afterwards.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
but that scene was stolen for what I think was a very effective Conservative Party Political Broadcast for the last election.
An independent Antrim should be allowed to join the UK if Northern Ireland joins the Republic so long as homosexuality becomes mandatory for every adult in Antrim.
All of this does of course ignore the question of whether Ireland would actually want Ulster back given the North's rather heavy contingent of religious nutters.
It will be expensive too. Sharing that cost over 65m people is a lot, lot easier than over 5m.
The real issues for a United Ireland are -
1) Integrating the Unionists into Dublin government. Trying the 1920s again won't work 2) Social security differences. Note how many Irish people take advantage of the systems in NI, when they can. 3) Abortion.
Abortion isn't an issue now. It's legal on both sides of the border.
Irish politicians recognise that the NHS is a stumbling block, which is why they are all formally committed to Sláintecare. Whether they can find the money to implement the plan and not mess up the implementation is an open question.
My impression was that social security rates were more generous in the Republic now.
The remarkable thing about SeanT - for someone supposedly not a totally obscure writer of fiction - was his complete inability to adopt any alternative character with any credibility. Thus Eadric was supposedly a remainer, until he found that within just a few days such pretence proved impossible for him to maintain….
All of his reincarnations have been blindingly obvious within moments.
It's interesting (and I believe already known in AI research) that one can often recognise a person through non-linguistic clues to their style. How short are the paragraphs? Do they use CAPITALS? Do they have a lot of punctuation? In theory one can deliberately adopt a different style, but like changing handwriting it's quite hard to do convincingly.
When I'm looking for a post which I noticed before, I can usually spot it before I focus on the words.
A fun Christmas competition might be to challenge us each to write in the style of a different contributor.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've watched The Wire and also know every scene from Love Actually (and Four Weddings And A Funeral).
Watched The Wire and not Love Actually = fine Watched The Wire and Love Actually = fine Watched Love Actually and not The Wire = bizarro.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
Does signed up mean sticking to for you here then?
An independent Antrim should be allowed to join the UK if Northern Ireland joins the Republic so long as homosexuality becomes mandatory for every adult in Antrim.
All of this does of course ignore the question of whether Ireland would actually want Ulster back given the North's rather heavy contingent of religious nutters.
It will be expensive too. Sharing that cost over 65m people is a lot, lot easier than over 5m.
The real issues for a United Ireland are -
1) Integrating the Unionists into Dublin government. Trying the 1920s again won't work 2) Social security differences. Note how many Irish people take advantage of the systems in NI, when they can. 3) Abortion.
I thought North and South were pretty much aligned now on Abortion? The law was changed in the North in 2020 to allow terminations up to 12 weeks unconditionally and I believe that is the same in Eire from 2018 onwards.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
Thanks; thought-provoking post. It's odd about Iberia, isn't it; AIUI, simply falls back to local loyalties as the Moors were driven back toward Andalucia. And reading Forgotten Kingdom and similar reminds one of the fluidity of 'national' borders, particularly in Eastern Europe. Compare and contrast a map of Eastern Europe, especially showing Germany and Poland today with a pre-WWII one. Did everyone move? I have, of course, to concede the point about differences between the populations across the island of Ireland, particularly in the NE, but in the 18th and 19th Centuries that was getting blurred, largely for economic reasons, and some of the significant people in Irish nationalism ate the time were Protestant.
'Did everyone move' - yes, pretty much. The mass movement of Germans back to rump Germany at the end of WW2 is interesting but little commented-on. Was it voluntary or forced? There was certainly an understandable mass-fleeing of Germans westwards as the red army advanced. Most of those who didn't flee were moved westwards at the end of the war - presumably forcibly, though the extent to which staying as a foreigner in what was now Russian-occupied Poland was an attractive option was probably minimal anyway.
The process by which a body of people comes to identify as a nation in an interesting and slightly mysterious process. Catalans never came to identify as Spaniards even 500 years after the union by marriage between Castille and Aragon. But there is no question about English identity despite the different statelets it formed from just over 1000 years ago. Yet Germans and Italians have managed to form a coherent nation despite their respective states being only a couple of hundred years old. My theory is that to form a nation what is really needed is either an oppressor or a campaign against a foreign force.
Yes; the millions of DP’s were a feature of the immediate post-war years, although I must admit I hadn’t realised it was such total Clearance. (capital intended) On reflection what was then known as East Prussia was almost completely repopulated.
Agree about ‘national identity’; is it associated with language? ‘English’ has always been fairly comprehensible to anyone between the Tweed and the Tamar, although sometimes some effort is required. Conversely, of course, Scotland is divided between two or three languages. Catalan is distinct from Spanish.
What happened after WWII was systematic and organised ethnic cleansing.
The populations were moved to match the lines on the maps.
Indeed. This is the dirty secret behind a Europe of clearly defined nation states that doesn't fight about borders anymore. Luckily the Germans have largely accepted what happened to them after WW2.
The reason for no more war in Europe
1) Eiltes who believed in war as a continuation of politics destroyed. With the death of Hitler, the last people who believed in that were dead 2) Ethnic enclaves in the "wrong" country. Fixed by expelling the minorities involves. Yes, Yugoslavia.... and look what happened there.... 3) The Americans, Russians (and to lesser extent the British and French) jointly conquered the whole of Europe and imposed a peace. Using Hitlers body as a negotiating table.
The dirty secret is that ethnic cleansing works.
The lack of it is why there's no peace in the Middle East.
Egypt and Jordan twice tried to wipe out Israel and divide the whole land of Palestine between the two of them. If they'd won either war the Jews would have been ethnically cleansed and the land would all be Jordan and Egypt and that would have been the end of the matter.
Second time around Israel took land off Egypt and Jordan and rather than expelling the Arabs to be relocated elsewhere in Egypt and Jordan they stayed in the land taken and now call themselves Palestinians.
Had Egypt and Jordan won there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing. Had Israel done the same as they'd intended there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing.
Because Israel won but didn't engage in ethnic cleansing, they're vilified around the world.
That's an inaccurate portrayal of history. There was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. This is still resented in the region today and was in large part the cause for the later conflicts.
Absolute nonsense. All the Palestinian Arabs who wanted to stay in Israel did so, unmolested by their Jewish neighbours, and they and their descendants now form a large part of Israel's Arab minority. The refugee crisis happened in 1948 because the rest were terrified that the Jews were going to do to them what they were planning to do to the Jews if they'd won.
There was ethnic cleansing in 1948 Palestine just as there was in 1990s Yugoslavia. This should not be controversial.
It's not "controversial" - it is outright untrue. Firstly, comparing it to 1990s Yugoslavia is totally inaccurate, because there are no documented cases of Palestinians being massacred in 1948. Secondly, most of the Palestinians who were left homeless, did so "voluntarily" - either because they were forcibly evicted from their villages by their own allies in the Arab League in advance of the Israeli declaration of independence to make the (assumed) forthcoming massacre of the Jews easier to accomplish, or because, having lost the resulting war, they were scared of Israeli reprisals.
As Mr Thompson says, if the Israelis had done what the Palestinians feared they would, there wouldn't be a Palestinian refugee population today - those remaining in Gaza would have been forced into Egypt in 1948, and those in the West Bank into Jordan in 1967.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
You could make a start by getting Epping Council to twin with Antrim.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Just shows how Boris can turn anything to gold. His parody of that scene has been described on here as the greatest political broadcast in human history!
Breaking: Police have raided the offices of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, sources tell @BelfastLiv.
It was claimed computer equipment and documents were removed. A councillor says he saw several plain-clothes police officers in the building in Ballymena.
PSNI: "Detectives from Criminal Investigation Branch visited an address earlier today at Bridge Street, Ballymena, as part of an investigation into suspected offences of Misconduct in Public Office and under the Freedom of Information Act 2000."
An independent Antrim should be allowed to join the UK if Northern Ireland joins the Republic so long as homosexuality becomes mandatory for every adult in Antrim.
All of this does of course ignore the question of whether Ireland would actually want Ulster back given the North's rather heavy contingent of religious nutters.
It will be expensive too. Sharing that cost over 65m people is a lot, lot easier than over 5m.
The real issues for a United Ireland are -
1) Integrating the Unionists into Dublin government. Trying the 1920s again won't work 2) Social security differences. Note how many Irish people take advantage of the systems in NI, when they can. 3) Abortion.
I thought North and South were pretty much aligned now on Abortion? The law was changed in the North in 2020 to allow terminations up to 12 weeks unconditionally and I believe that is the same in Eire from 2018 onwards.
Ironically opposition to abortion is one rare point of agreement between the DUP and Catholic church, so an independent socially conservative Antrim which banned abortion could also be a point of refuge for pro life Catholics who wanted to move from the increasingly secular Republic.
Donegal is not that far away and was the only county in the Irish republic to vote against legalising abortion in the 2018 referendum
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Personally I would go for any and every scene that had Martine McCutcheon in it.
Breaking: Police have raided the offices of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, sources tell @BelfastLiv.
It was claimed computer equipment and documents were removed. A councillor says he saw several plain-clothes police officers in the building in Ballymena.
PSNI: "Detectives from Criminal Investigation Branch visited an address earlier today at Bridge Street, Ballymena, as part of an investigation into suspected offences of Misconduct in Public Office and under the Freedom of Information Act 2000."
Breaking: Police have raided the offices of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, sources tell @BelfastLiv.
It was claimed computer equipment and documents were removed. A councillor says he saw several plain-clothes police officers in the building in Ballymena.
PSNI: "Detectives from Criminal Investigation Branch visited an address earlier today at Bridge Street, Ballymena, as part of an investigation into suspected offences of Misconduct in Public Office and under the Freedom of Information Act 2000."
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
Thanks; thought-provoking post. It's odd about Iberia, isn't it; AIUI, simply falls back to local loyalties as the Moors were driven back toward Andalucia. And reading Forgotten Kingdom and similar reminds one of the fluidity of 'national' borders, particularly in Eastern Europe. Compare and contrast a map of Eastern Europe, especially showing Germany and Poland today with a pre-WWII one. Did everyone move? I have, of course, to concede the point about differences between the populations across the island of Ireland, particularly in the NE, but in the 18th and 19th Centuries that was getting blurred, largely for economic reasons, and some of the significant people in Irish nationalism ate the time were Protestant.
'Did everyone move' - yes, pretty much. The mass movement of Germans back to rump Germany at the end of WW2 is interesting but little commented-on. Was it voluntary or forced? There was certainly an understandable mass-fleeing of Germans westwards as the red army advanced. Most of those who didn't flee were moved westwards at the end of the war - presumably forcibly, though the extent to which staying as a foreigner in what was now Russian-occupied Poland was an attractive option was probably minimal anyway.
The process by which a body of people comes to identify as a nation in an interesting and slightly mysterious process. Catalans never came to identify as Spaniards even 500 years after the union by marriage between Castille and Aragon. But there is no question about English identity despite the different statelets it formed from just over 1000 years ago. Yet Germans and Italians have managed to form a coherent nation despite their respective states being only a couple of hundred years old. My theory is that to form a nation what is really needed is either an oppressor or a campaign against a foreign force.
Yes; the millions of DP’s were a feature of the immediate post-war years, although I must admit I hadn’t realised it was such total Clearance. (capital intended) On reflection what was then known as East Prussia was almost completely repopulated.
Agree about ‘national identity’; is it associated with language? ‘English’ has always been fairly comprehensible to anyone between the Tweed and the Tamar, although sometimes some effort is required. Conversely, of course, Scotland is divided between two or three languages. Catalan is distinct from Spanish.
What happened after WWII was systematic and organised ethnic cleansing.
The populations were moved to match the lines on the maps.
Indeed. This is the dirty secret behind a Europe of clearly defined nation states that doesn't fight about borders anymore. Luckily the Germans have largely accepted what happened to them after WW2.
The reason for no more war in Europe
1) Eiltes who believed in war as a continuation of politics destroyed. With the death of Hitler, the last people who believed in that were dead 2) Ethnic enclaves in the "wrong" country. Fixed by expelling the minorities involves. Yes, Yugoslavia.... and look what happened there.... 3) The Americans, Russians (and to lesser extent the British and French) jointly conquered the whole of Europe and imposed a peace. Using Hitlers body as a negotiating table.
The dirty secret is that ethnic cleansing works.
The lack of it is why there's no peace in the Middle East.
Egypt and Jordan twice tried to wipe out Israel and divide the whole land of Palestine between the two of them. If they'd won either war the Jews would have been ethnically cleansed and the land would all be Jordan and Egypt and that would have been the end of the matter.
Second time around Israel took land off Egypt and Jordan and rather than expelling the Arabs to be relocated elsewhere in Egypt and Jordan they stayed in the land taken and now call themselves Palestinians.
Had Egypt and Jordan won there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing. Had Israel done the same as they'd intended there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing.
Because Israel won but didn't engage in ethnic cleansing, they're vilified around the world.
That's an inaccurate portrayal of history. There was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. This is still resented in the region today and was in large part the cause for the later conflicts.
Absolute nonsense. All the Palestinian Arabs who wanted to stay in Israel did so, unmolested by their Jewish neighbours, and they and their descendants now form a large part of Israel's Arab minority. The refugee crisis happened in 1948 because the rest were terrified that the Jews were going to do to them what they were planning to do to the Jews if they'd won.
There was ethnic cleansing in 1948 Palestine just as there was in 1990s Yugoslavia. This should not be controversial.
It's not "controversial" - it is outright untrue. Firstly, comparing it to 1990s Yugoslavia is totally inaccurate, because there are no documented cases of Palestinians being massacred in 1948. Secondly, most of the Palestinians who were left homeless, did so "voluntarily" - either because they were forcibly evicted from their villages by their own allies in the Arab League in advance of the Israeli declaration of independence to make the (assumed) forthcoming massacre of the Jews easier to accomplish, or because, having lost the resulting war, they were scared of Israeli reprisals.
As Mr Thompson says, if the Israelis had done what the Palestinians feared they would, there wouldn't be a Palestinian refugee population today - those remaining in Gaza would have been forced into Egypt in 1948, and those in the West Bank into Jordan in 1967.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
You could make a start by getting Epping Council to twin with Antrim.
I don't think they'll be much appetite for associating with a place that has such extremist politics on stark display.
Wait for it.
On the other hand, the people of Epping Forest would probably go for it.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
Thanks; thought-provoking post. It's odd about Iberia, isn't it; AIUI, simply falls back to local loyalties as the Moors were driven back toward Andalucia. And reading Forgotten Kingdom and similar reminds one of the fluidity of 'national' borders, particularly in Eastern Europe. Compare and contrast a map of Eastern Europe, especially showing Germany and Poland today with a pre-WWII one. Did everyone move? I have, of course, to concede the point about differences between the populations across the island of Ireland, particularly in the NE, but in the 18th and 19th Centuries that was getting blurred, largely for economic reasons, and some of the significant people in Irish nationalism ate the time were Protestant.
'Did everyone move' - yes, pretty much. The mass movement of Germans back to rump Germany at the end of WW2 is interesting but little commented-on. Was it voluntary or forced? There was certainly an understandable mass-fleeing of Germans westwards as the red army advanced. Most of those who didn't flee were moved westwards at the end of the war - presumably forcibly, though the extent to which staying as a foreigner in what was now Russian-occupied Poland was an attractive option was probably minimal anyway.
The process by which a body of people comes to identify as a nation in an interesting and slightly mysterious process. Catalans never came to identify as Spaniards even 500 years after the union by marriage between Castille and Aragon. But there is no question about English identity despite the different statelets it formed from just over 1000 years ago. Yet Germans and Italians have managed to form a coherent nation despite their respective states being only a couple of hundred years old. My theory is that to form a nation what is really needed is either an oppressor or a campaign against a foreign force.
Yes; the millions of DP’s were a feature of the immediate post-war years, although I must admit I hadn’t realised it was such total Clearance. (capital intended) On reflection what was then known as East Prussia was almost completely repopulated.
Agree about ‘national identity’; is it associated with language? ‘English’ has always been fairly comprehensible to anyone between the Tweed and the Tamar, although sometimes some effort is required. Conversely, of course, Scotland is divided between two or three languages. Catalan is distinct from Spanish.
What happened after WWII was systematic and organised ethnic cleansing.
The populations were moved to match the lines on the maps.
Indeed. This is the dirty secret behind a Europe of clearly defined nation states that doesn't fight about borders anymore. Luckily the Germans have largely accepted what happened to them after WW2.
The reason for no more war in Europe
1) Eiltes who believed in war as a continuation of politics destroyed. With the death of Hitler, the last people who believed in that were dead 2) Ethnic enclaves in the "wrong" country. Fixed by expelling the minorities involves. Yes, Yugoslavia.... and look what happened there.... 3) The Americans, Russians (and to lesser extent the British and French) jointly conquered the whole of Europe and imposed a peace. Using Hitlers body as a negotiating table.
The dirty secret is that ethnic cleansing works.
The lack of it is why there's no peace in the Middle East.
Egypt and Jordan twice tried to wipe out Israel and divide the whole land of Palestine between the two of them. If they'd won either war the Jews would have been ethnically cleansed and the land would all be Jordan and Egypt and that would have been the end of the matter.
Second time around Israel took land off Egypt and Jordan and rather than expelling the Arabs to be relocated elsewhere in Egypt and Jordan they stayed in the land taken and now call themselves Palestinians.
Had Egypt and Jordan won there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing. Had Israel done the same as they'd intended there'd be 'peace' because of ethnic cleansing.
Because Israel won but didn't engage in ethnic cleansing, they're vilified around the world.
That's an inaccurate portrayal of history. There was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. This is still resented in the region today and was in large part the cause for the later conflicts.
Absolute nonsense. All the Palestinian Arabs who wanted to stay in Israel did so, unmolested by their Jewish neighbours, and they and their descendants now form a large part of Israel's Arab minority. The refugee crisis happened in 1948 because the rest were terrified that the Jews were going to do to them what they were planning to do to the Jews if they'd won.
There was ethnic cleansing in 1948 Palestine just as there was in 1990s Yugoslavia. This should not be controversial.
It's not "controversial" - it is outright untrue. Firstly, comparing it to 1990s Yugoslavia is totally inaccurate, because there are no documented cases of Palestinians being massacred in 1948. Secondly, most of the Palestinians who were left homeless, did so "voluntarily" - either because they were forcibly evicted from their villages by their own allies in the Arab League in advance of the Israeli declaration of independence to make the (assumed) forthcoming massacre of the Jews easier to accomplish, or because, having lost the resulting war, they were scared of Israeli reprisals.
As Mr Thompson says, if the Israelis had done what the Palestinians feared they would, there wouldn't be a Palestinian refugee population today - those remaining in Gaza would have been forced into Egypt in 1948, and those in the West Bank into Jordan in 1967.
I did mean to say "during the 1948 war of Israeli independence", which Deir Yassin preceded by over a month. But technically, yes you are correct.
However, you've inadvertently highlighted the weakness in your own argument - which is that the claim of ethnic cleansing has to pinned almost entirely on a single incident in which barely a hundred people died. More Israelis were killed that year in the Kfar Etzion massacre alone.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
They don't actually, the right is significantly watered down by the border poll provisions in the GFA.
Only if Nationalist parties combined win more votes than Unionist parties combined at Stormont which is not the case now.
However even if there was a border poll and a majority for a United Ireland Protestant dominated Antrim would declare UDI rather than accept Dublin rule
Antrim will fight ... and Antrim will be wrong
No it would be right to declare UDI and I would fully support it if it had its wish to stay in the UK ignored.
Hang on. You're the nutter who has spent months telling us how wrong the Catalans are to be pushing for peaceful independence and you are advocating an armed rebellion against what would be a lawfully agreed arrangement with the support of the majority of Northern Ireland? (It can't happen without that)
There are of course separatist terrorist groups in Spain eg ETA too.
However yes the Spanish constitution prevents a UDI declaration by Catalonia there is no constitutional block on an Antrim UDI. For if it left the UK after a NI border poll vote to leave the UK and declared UDI then the GFA and UK law would no longer apply to it and it would have declared UDI before Irish law could be imposed on it
I genuinely think you are unhinged.
You have to be hinged before you can become unhinged. I don't think that applies here.
Plan B of mask wearing and ban on indoor gatherings must be enforced immediately, warns NHS leader NHS Confederation chief said Covid restrictions including a return to working from home need to return or UK at risk of 'winter crisis'
please insert "not" before "value" in my post above.
A "ban on indoor gatherings". What the hell does this even mean? No socialising? Closure of restaurants, cafes, pubs, cinemas, theatres? Closure of shops?
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've explained that to everyone's satisfaction. I won't repeat myself.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've watched The Wire and also know every scene from Love Actually (and Four Weddings And A Funeral).
Watched The Wire and not Love Actually = fine Watched The Wire and Love Actually = fine Watched Love Actually and not The Wire = bizarro.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've explained that to everyone's satisfaction. I won't repeat myself.
An independent Antrim should be allowed to join the UK if Northern Ireland joins the Republic so long as homosexuality becomes mandatory for every adult in Antrim.
All of this does of course ignore the question of whether Ireland would actually want Ulster back given the North's rather heavy contingent of religious nutters.
It will be expensive too. Sharing that cost over 65m people is a lot, lot easier than over 5m.
The real issues for a United Ireland are -
1) Integrating the Unionists into Dublin government. Trying the 1920s again won't work 2) Social security differences. Note how many Irish people take advantage of the systems in NI, when they can. 3) Abortion.
I thought North and South were pretty much aligned now on Abortion? The law was changed in the North in 2020 to allow terminations up to 12 weeks unconditionally and I believe that is the same in Eire from 2018 onwards.
Ironically opposition to abortion is one rare point of agreement between the DUP and Catholic church, so an independent socially conservative Antrim which banned abortion could also be a point of refuge for pro life Catholics who wanted to move from the increasingly secular Republic.
Donegal is not that far away and was the only county in the Irish republic to vote against legalising abortion in the 2018 referendum
I would try to parody you but you do such a good job of it yourself it would be wasted.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've watched The Wire and also know every scene from Love Actually (and Four Weddings And A Funeral).
Watched The Wire and not Love Actually = fine Watched The Wire and Love Actually = fine Watched Love Actually and not The Wire = bizarro.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
You could make a start by getting Epping Council to twin with Antrim.
I don't think they'll be much appetite for associating with a place that has such extremist politics on stark display.
Wait for it.
On the other hand, the people of Epping Forest would probably go for it.
Actually, the Antrim and Newtownabbey councillors are far more mixed politically than the Epping ones, certainly prima facie! Rather interesting.
Dems are also butchering their Reconciliation bill with work requirements and cutoffs that are absolutely destroying it to meet Manchin and Sinema's vague demands
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've watched The Wire and also know every scene from Love Actually (and Four Weddings And A Funeral).
Watched The Wire and not Love Actually = fine Watched The Wire and Love Actually = fine Watched Love Actually and not The Wire = bizarro.
Happy wife, happy life. That's my reason for watching Love Actually.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Just shows how Boris can turn anything to gold. His parody of that scene has been described on here as the greatest political broadcast in human history!
Even though Boris stole it from the absolutely brilliant Rosena Allin-Khan:
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
The Wire - not watched. Love Actually - knows every scene.
I've watched The Wire and also know every scene from Love Actually (and Four Weddings And A Funeral).
Watched The Wire and not Love Actually = fine Watched The Wire and Love Actually = fine Watched Love Actually and not The Wire = bizarro.
Happy wife, happy life. That's my reason for watching Love Actually.
Like David, I'll get around to The Wire one day.
Obviously if instructions come from On High then that changes everything.
And tip for The Wire - turn on subtitles for the first few episodes.
On the subject of treatment for COVID patients my wife and a lot of my European friends are quite scathing about how UK society operates. In their view (and correctly, IMO) the UK has tried to create a society without consequences for poor decisions. Decide not to get the vaccine? Don't worry the NHS will still give you treatment, even at the exclusion of others. Decide to not look after your weight, don't worry the NHS will give you free diabetes drugs and quarterly checkups to tell you to stop being so fat but don't worry about listening to the doctors, we'll give you the drugs for free either way.
It extends to other areas too, had too many kids and can't afford it on your low wages? Don't worry we've got tax credits for that, need a bigger property for all those kids you can't afford? Great we'll give you housing benefit for that bit too. Oh you don't like your job? Don't worry about it guys, just quit and we'll give you unemployment benefits plus a myriad of top ups to ensure the kids you could already couldn't afford aren't neglected and we'll top up your housing benefits too so the landlord doesn't evict you. Wait, you never want to work again? It's ok, there's no time limit to benefits! You can sit there and do nothing all day if you want and we don't mind.
You get the picture. People make stupid decisions and the state has decided its role is to protect people from their own stupid choices.
If you think free health care is the cause of obesity then you'd have some job explaining the US. And whatever we are doing to encourage people to have kids clearly isn't enough, with births down 4% in 2020 and the fertility rate at 1.58, the lowest on record (and no, that's not because of Covid).
Agree on obesity & free health care. On the birth rate I think it is fair to say that some that part of the problem is some who are above benefit level but not financially comfortable have fewer kids than they might otherwise choose to, and that is particularly down to housing costs. It is unsurprising that this causes some resentment, and that we should look for a better balance than the status quo.
Anyone above benefits level can afford to have kids. Yes, it may be a struggle, but it's doable. My parents were permanently skint when I was a kid, and I had a brilliant childhood. Not denying there's a housing crisis. But having a family is much more important than being financially comfortable, IMO.
Whether they can, or should do is not really the question for society, that is for individuals. If many of them feel they can't or shouldn't have a replacement level of kids there is a big problem that society needs to look at.
I agree. I would like to see the whole of society reoriented to support children and families, with more family friendly work places, better funded schools, more subsidised childcare and higher child benefit. I take the Whitney Houston view on children. The only point I am making is that people who wait until they have amassed a certain amount of money before having children shouldn't resent others, including those who receive support from the state, who are willing to just get on with it.
Again, perhaps they shouldn't resent it, but some of them do and that is very understandable.
If we are only allowed to comment on opinions that we think are not only wrong but also impossible to understand then we'll be reduced to discussing why some people like Love Actually.
The film does deliver a good debate as to which is the very worst scene. My submission would be where the bloke is stood on Keira Knightley's doorstep holding up a series of soppy, overwrought proclamations of love on placards. Is that a homage to Dylan? Possibly, but I don't care if it is. It's very bad.
Just shows how Boris can turn anything to gold. His parody of that scene has been described on here as the greatest political broadcast in human history!
Even though Boris stole it from the absolutely brilliant Rosena Allin-Khan:
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The UK has already signed up to that.
Does signed up mean sticking to for you here then?
The UK is sticking to the NI Protocol.
Article 16 is a valid part of the NI Protocol and as we've already established its conditions as written are quite clearly met.
Plan B of mask wearing and ban on indoor gatherings must be enforced immediately, warns NHS leader NHS Confederation chief said Covid restrictions including a return to working from home need to return or UK at risk of 'winter crisis'
please insert "not" before "value" in my post above.
A "ban on indoor gatherings". What the hell does this even mean? No socialising? Closure of restaurants, cafes, pubs, cinemas, theatres? Closure of shops?
Just no.
Thats not the plan B - Plan B is masks, WFH and vaccine passports for larger events/hospitality.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
Breaking: Police have raided the offices of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, sources tell @BelfastLiv.
It was claimed computer equipment and documents were removed. A councillor says he saw several plain-clothes police officers in the building in Ballymena.
PSNI: "Detectives from Criminal Investigation Branch visited an address earlier today at Bridge Street, Ballymena, as part of an investigation into suspected offences of Misconduct in Public Office and under the Freedom of Information Act 2000."
Breaking: Police have raided the offices of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, sources tell @BelfastLiv.
It was claimed computer equipment and documents were removed. A councillor says he saw several plain-clothes police officers in the building in Ballymena.
PSNI: "Detectives from Criminal Investigation Branch visited an address earlier today at Bridge Street, Ballymena, as part of an investigation into suspected offences of Misconduct in Public Office and under the Freedom of Information Act 2000."
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
The UK already agreed that the whole of NI stays in the UK, or the whole of NI departs. Repartition isn't an option. And the GFA is British law already, and don't forget the USA is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement too.
Repartition can't happen. Its against the law.
The GFA only works with Protestant and Catholic consent, impose direct rule from Dublin alongside the Irish sea border and it will be ended from the Protestant side as much as a hard border in Ireland and direct rule from London over NI would end it from the Catholic side
If the Protestants lose a border poll then there are no Mulligans.
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
Plan B of mask wearing and ban on indoor gatherings must be enforced immediately, warns NHS leader NHS Confederation chief said Covid restrictions including a return to working from home need to return or UK at risk of 'winter crisis'
please insert "not" before "value" in my post above.
A "ban on indoor gatherings". What the hell does this even mean? No socialising? Closure of restaurants, cafes, pubs, cinemas, theatres? Closure of shops?
Just no.
Some people just love to suck the joy out of life.
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
Whilst I of course always fully endorse money being spent on lawyers that does strike me as a truly remarkable thing to do. Thank goodness we are not putting into the pot anymore.
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
Mr. F, it'd be interesting to see polling on whether, if numbers stayed as they are currently, how many want lockdowns, to stay as now, or the Satanic tyranny of vaccine passports.
You’re all laughing at HYUFD. Again. But he’s right on one thing.
The men of violence have a veto on any massive constitutional change in NI - whether towards the UK or Eire. This is exactly why the UK/EU are already contorting themselves to avoid borders anywhere
As long as this remains true, no one will want a border poll. This is likely to remain the case for decades
Eventually I suspect NI will become some unique greyzone with ‘joint sovereignty’ so both sides can claim ‘victory’. It is already halfway there
I see there's to be an interdenominational service to mark a century of Partition in N. Ireland. HM Queen and Johnson will be present, but not the Irish President. Can't help feeling this isn't a good idea.
It is a good idea. If Michael D Higgins wants to refuse his invitation to commemorate the 100 year centenary of NI (which also of course created the Irish Free State which became the Irish Republic he is now president of) to make a political point and have a sulk that is up to him
As I said, I'm not at all sure. What we now know as N.Ireland was created as a response to a 'quasi' revolution fostered by a small religious minority and encouraged by divisive politicians in England, and as a consequence of different economic treatment of said religious minority.
It's been a cause of at least simmering hostility ever since.
Well I am sure. If President Higgins wants to throw a tantrum tough, he was sent an invitiation, if he refused it why should we care?
Northern Ireland was created to respect the wishes of the majority Protestant and Unionist population of the province who wanted to stay part of the UK and anyone who disrespects that is a traitor to the UK as far as I am concerned
Well, I for one regard the artificial division of the island of Ireland as a something to be regretted. And I regard the policy of the Conservative party 120 or so years ago as devious and, in some aspects at least (the Curragh Mutiny) as at least bordering on treasonable.
Just to dig into your first sentence: A slightly pedantic point, because I don't think this is exactly what you mean, but there's no real reason why nations should follow 'logical' divisions of geography. Do we regret the 'artificial' division of the Iberian peninsula into two countries? Or applaud the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia to make a neater division between Greece and Turkey? Of course not. Nationalities tend not to be geographically neat, and our insular experience gives us a slightly misleading impression that this is the case more often than is true. There are clearly two nationalities in Northern Ireland. Now, if those two nationalities were neatly split - all the unionists in Antrim and Down, say - I don't think anyone reasonable would have had any problem with partition. The problem is that the two defied simple geographical division. Indeed, it should be noted that pre-partition there were numerous unionists in what is now the republic - what happened to them? Presumably civil war Ireland was somewhere unionists were highly motivated to leave. Which perhaps illustrates why partition was perhaps considered a least-worst option - the civil war and unionist exodus would have been rather worse had independence been given to the whole island of Ireland. I'm not saying that partition was a good solution. But it's not obvious to me that that any of the other solutions were obviously any better - certainly not at the time. There may have been a window in the nineteenth century when home rule might have been supported by everyone in Ireland (or there might not - my understanding of nineteenth century Irish politics is hazy). But by the early twentieth century, that moment appeared to have passed, if it was there at all.
On NI cultural identities: as a lockdown activity, some friends and I have been listening to albums from before our time and discussing them. We've recently done Van Morrison, a man and his work I previously knew little about, except that he was Northern Irish and (with a name like that) probably Protestant. It turns out that yes, his background is Belfast working class Protestant - in which respect it's fascinating how 'Irish' his music is. Now it's ridiculous to draw too many inferences from a sample of one, but it made me question again how great the gulf actually is between the communities of Northern Ireland.
I watched an interesting 2-part documentary about the partition of Ireland. Road to Partition I think it was called.
If I'm remembering correctly the reason NI didn't include all 9 Ulster counties was because the NI Protestant leadership thought that would mean the province would have too small a Unionist majority for comfort (plurality? I get mixed up). So 3 counties were left with the Republic and the Protestants in those did feel abandoned/betrayed. I think 2 of the 6 NI counties did have Catholic majorities (Fermanagh + ?) but the NI leaders felt that they could handle the overall balance of the 6.
There was supposed to be a referendum in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Which was never held.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have SF MPs now as does most of Armagh and South Down and half of Belfast. Derry has an SDLP MP.
All the rest of Northern Ireland outside Belfast has DUP MPs with 1 Alliance MP.
In 10 years probably makes sense to redraw the boundaries again on those lines
There is going to be a Sinn Fein government in the 26 counties at some point in those 10 years. FG/FF cannot keep the most popular party out of government indefinitely. They are not going to settle for anything less than a 32 county Ireland.
FG and FF combined still win comfortably more votes in Ireland than SF. However even if SF won every single vote in the Republic of Ireland and every single seat it would not make any difference to NI's and Antrim's right to self determination and stay part of the UK if they wish.
Force Antrim in particular to have direct rule from Dublin imposed on it as well as the border in the Irish Sea against its wishes then Sinn Fein would create the conditions for a return of loyalist paramilitary violence, Protestant Ulster will never accept direct rule by a Sinn Fein government. So we would be back to the Troubles again
If a section of a significant political party this side of the Irish Sea didn’t encourage the hard-line Unionists, but instead suggested they accept reality, then there might be more hope.
Ulster Protestants have as much a right to stay part of the UK as they did 100 years ago.
That is non negotiable and if leftwingers like you dislike it, tough
Only if they move to Great Britain if the Nationalists win a border poll.
David Trimble gave up that right on behalf of Unionists in 1997.
In exchange Ireland and the Nationalists agreed that NI would remain in the UK unless the voters in NI determined otherwise. But if the voters in NI determine otherwise, then that's it, it goes to Ireland.
No Antrim would declare UDI first and rightwingers like me would press the Tory leadership to push to keep Antrim in the UK too even if Nationalists won a border poll across NI as a whole.
You could make a start by getting Epping Council to twin with Antrim.
I don't think they'll be much appetite for associating with a place that has such extremist politics on stark display.
Wait for it.
On the other hand, the people of Epping Forest would probably go for it.
Basingstoke, however, did briefly have a DUP MP. (A Tory defector).
The European Parliament is suing the European Commission.
@EP_President: EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it. I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
Comments
'Inspired' seemed an odd choice of words (sh*t, IMO) for a people who had just seen millions of their kin murdered for their religion.
The UK has already signed up to that.
Withholding treatment from ongoing alcoholics is because it undermines the likely success of the treatment. It means resources (ie a scarce liver) could be better used elsewhere. It makes no judgement on *why* they need a new liver
Take vaccine -> don't die of Covid -> survive long enough for those things to happen
A significant minority of the reporters would not have (been alive long enough to have) experienced those things if they had not got vaccinated
If there were infinite available livers, and infinite resources to transplant them, then the alcoholics would get a new liver..... As long as the clinical judgement of the doctor was that the transplant would be likely to work for them.....
Just to string together a couple of today's topics..
'Carson spent three years in the British Army's Parachute Regiment, mainly in the Middle East in the late 1940s. During his service he shot dead an armed Zionist terrorist.'
They would not lose either as they would have the majority of the Protestant Antrim population behind them
However yes the Spanish constitution prevents a UDI declaration by Catalonia there is no constitutional block on an Antrim UDI. For if it left the UK after a NI border poll vote to leave the UK and declared UDI then the GFA and UK law would no longer apply to it and it would have declared UDI before Irish law could be imposed on it
We will be a happier, wealthier and more United Kingdom once the festering boil that is Northern Ireland is removed.
And if not then they would at least have the majority of Carrickfergus behind them.
And if not then they would at least have the majority of Milebush behind them
And if not they would at least have most of Oakland Crescent behind them
And if not they would at least have Number 43 behind them.
Well most of them. Grandpa is sound but Ma is a bit unsure.
On current polls Boris could need the DUP too
All that eternal lockdown (say) would achieve is to spread out the infections in the 10% or so who won't get vaccinated.
I remember some people getting upset when I pointed out that, pre Delta, that we were very unlikely to reach herd immunity through vaccination. Unless we vaccinated everyone - including children. Post Delta that is even more true.
Anecdatum alert: we've had 1 confirmed case* here now in 4.5 weeks - and they didn't attend campus last year. I think its already done the rounds - the week after the Nov. lockdown started, reckon 20 % of our students reported having it.
I think the interesting thing is that they're/we're really not comfortable with stating that this actually is part of the plan.
So it won't happen (I suspect extra furlough would put the kibosh it.)
Remember the PM is happy to let the bodies pile high.
The students don't want to get shut in for 10 days when they feel mostly fine, and are 'knee deep in clunge'*
*See the Inbetweeners...
1) Integrating the Unionists into Dublin government. Trying the 1920s again won't work
2) Social security differences. Note how many Irish people take advantage of the systems in NI, when they can.
3) Abortion.
I wonder which of them will be the first to blame the unvaxxed for further restrictions even being muttered darkly.
Flu has a 5 to 10% annual attack rate and delta is much more infectious, so the long term outcome here is still going to be millions of cases a year, and annual deaths in the low to mid tens of thousands.
Some people like drinking Dubonnet neat.
Are they evil? stupid? wrong? different?
I go with the last - not my bag, but it's a free country.
So, the * was that we'd had a few more students with some covid-adjacent symptoms. All told not to attend practicals and get tested. All came back negative.
We are in a situation where healthy people are trying to avoid other healthy people for fear that they will test positive for Covid.
As Mr Thompson says, if the Israelis had done what the Palestinians feared they would, there wouldn't be a Palestinian refugee population today - those remaining in Gaza would have been forced into Egypt in 1948, and those in the West Bank into Jordan in 1967.
Love Actually - knows every scene.
PB Tories clap clap clap
always wrong clap clap clap
edit: Mr Dawning beat me to it.
Irish politicians recognise that the NHS is a stumbling block, which is why they are all formally committed to Sláintecare. Whether they can find the money to implement the plan and not mess up the implementation is an open question.
My impression was that social security rates were more generous in the Republic now.
When I'm looking for a post which I noticed before, I can usually spot it before I focus on the words.
A fun Christmas competition might be to challenge us each to write in the style of a different contributor.
Watched The Wire and Love Actually = fine
Watched Love Actually and not The Wire = bizarro.
I absolutely have no time for the Express but this is shocking behaviour
Piers Corbyn sparks outrage as anti-vax mob build GALLOWS outside Parliament
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1508999/piers-corbyn-news-anti-vax-protest-westminster-parliament-david-amess-1508999#ICID=Android_ExpressNewApp_AppShare
Breaking: Police have raided the offices of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, sources tell @BelfastLiv.
It was claimed computer equipment and documents were removed. A councillor says he saw several plain-clothes police officers in the building in Ballymena.
PSNI: "Detectives from Criminal Investigation Branch visited an address earlier today at Bridge Street, Ballymena, as part of an investigation into suspected offences of Misconduct in Public Office and under the Freedom of Information Act 2000."
https://twitter.com/brendanhughes64/status/1450835208400429057
Donegal is not that far away and was the only county in the Irish republic to vote against legalising abortion in the 2018 referendum
damn! beaten again.
Wait for it.
On the other hand, the people of Epping Forest would probably go for it.
However, you've inadvertently highlighted the weakness in your own argument - which is that the claim of ethnic cleansing has to pinned almost entirely on a single incident in which barely a hundred people died. More Israelis were killed that year in the Kfar Etzion massacre alone.
Just no.
https://antrimandnewtownabbey.gov.uk/councillors/
Like David, I'll get around to The Wire one day.
https://twitter.com/drrosena/status/1197884965444366337?lang=en
And tip for The Wire - turn on subtitles for the first few episodes.
Article 16 is a valid part of the NI Protocol and as we've already established its conditions as written are quite clearly met.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulligan_(games)
@EP_President:
EU states that violate the rule of law should not receive EU funds. We have a mechanism for this but the @EU_Commission is failing to use it.
I have therefore asked our services to prepare a lawsuit against the Commission to ensure rules are enforced.
https://twitter.com/EP_President/status/1450823386553331719
EDIT: Although England 41k is not brilliant.
DOUBLE-EDIT: Ah I see Wale s had a catchup day two days ago to artificially inflate the number so this 49k is a step up, just not a big one.
The men of violence have a veto on any massive constitutional change in NI - whether towards the UK or Eire. This is exactly why the UK/EU are already contorting themselves to avoid borders anywhere
As long as this remains true, no one will want a border poll. This is likely to remain the case for decades
Eventually I suspect NI will become some unique greyzone with ‘joint sovereignty’ so both sides can claim ‘victory’. It is already halfway there
It's definitely the EU referring to itself and the conventions of its genre.