Regarding the Samurai Sword, I guess you lot have never heard of cosplay?
If you do a google image search of 'cosplay' you might get an idea.
Thanks. I can't say I'm much the wiser.
Cosplay = Costume Play
The practice of dressing up as a character from a film, book, or video game, especially one from the Japanese genres of manga or anime.
Yeah, but what's the sex bit, if that's not a question which shouldn't be answered on a respectable website?
The sex bit is if you fantasise about sex with Togukawa Ieyashu. Presumably, if you fantasised about sex with Caesar, your partner would dress up as a Roman.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
One thing Brexit has done is expose the irredentism of the unionists in both Northern Ireland and England who believe the solution to this absurdity lies in a de facto reversal of Irish independence by breaking it away from the EU. The status quo is becoming unsustainable.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
One thing is for certain, even if we did rejoin the EU we would never join the Euro
Countries joining the EU don't have a choice iirc.
I see Croatia still hasn't joined the Euro.
Only a matter of time. All they need to do is fudge the criteria a little bit further.
Have you been there recently? I was there earlier in the year and I'm going back next month on business. I'll only bother packing Euros in my wallet. Just about everything is priced and paid in euros - and it was even before they joined the EU.
Fun fact: Montenegro uses the Euro despite not being in the EU nor being allowed to do so. Short of invading, it's impossible to prevent sovereign states using whatever currency they please.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
One thing is for certain, even if we did rejoin the EU we would never join the Euro
Countries joining the EU don't have a choice iirc.
Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic etc joined the EU after the Euro was launched and are still not members of it
All EU members not yet in the Eurozone can de facto avoid fulfilling their obligation to adopt the Euro by simply failing to qualify to adopt it. To qualify, a member state has to enter and remain in the ERM II for two years, and there is no requirement for any member state to do so. Ironically the only state that is currently a member of the ERM II is the only other EU state to have an absolute opt-out from the Euro, Denmark.
One thing is for certain, even if we did rejoin the EU we would never join the Euro
Countries joining the EU don't have a choice iirc.
I see Croatia still hasn't joined the Euro.
Only a matter of time. All they need to do is fudge the criteria a little bit further.
Have you been there recently? I was there earlier in the year and I'm going back next month on business. I'll only bother packing Euros in my wallet. Just about everything is priced and paid in euros - and it was even before they joined the EU.
Fun fact: Montenegro uses the Euro despite not being in the EU nor being allowed to do so. Short of invading, it's impossible to prevent sovereign states using whatever currency they please.
As does Kosovo. Doing that has a couple of small and undesirable downsides though.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
One thing Brexit has done is expose the irredentism of the unionists in both Northern Ireland and England who believe the solution to this absurdity lies in a de facto reversal of Irish independence by breaking it away from the EU. The status quo is becoming unsustainable.
The Irish must act in their own best interests.
This election has been a very good one for Unionists, however. And that's not surprising. The EU is all about breaking national identity down. Brexit strengthens the Union.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
The case will be made, and it will unify. Just a matter of time.
A very long way to go, looking at those numbers.
Interesting how support for the Union strengthened between 2006 and 2008. I suppose a perceived Brexit-induced recession for the UK could reverse that and support for Scottish independence moved a lot during the run up to that referendum.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
The case will be made, and it will unify. Just a matter of time.
A very long way to go, looking at those numbers.
Interesting how support for the Union strengthened between 2006 and 2008. I suppose a perceived Brexit-induced recession for the UK could reverse that and support for Scottish independence moved a lot during the run up to that referendum.
I don't think the two are comparable. There has been an armed struggle for unification, people have had a chance to make up their minds already.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
I'll put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU (as seems very possible right now), will Leavers consider that a price worth paying?
Part of taking back control is regaining the sovereignty to self-harm.
I want this country to be able to make its own mind up without being dictated to by a foreign power.
If the country votes, democratically for someone I don't like then that's the will of the people expressed through the ballot box. We must be free to make our own mistakes.
I go along with this. Except we didn't have to leave the EU to self-harm. We did that IN LEAVING the EU. All along we had the sovereignty and necessary "control" to screw ourselves over.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
The case will be made, and it will unify. Just a matter of time.
A very long way to go, looking at those numbers.
Interesting how support for the Union strengthened between 2006 and 2008. I suppose a perceived Brexit-induced recession for the UK could reverse that and support for Scottish independence moved a lot during the run up to that referendum.
I think the scope for movement is less than in Scotland, as Unionist voters are even less willing to shift. And, let's face it, Gerry Adams is a much less attractive proponent for Nationalism than Alex Salmond. I might not like Salmond in charge, but I don't have to worry about my physical safety at his hands.
I'll put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU (as seems very possible right now), will Leavers consider that a price worth paying?
Part of taking back control is regaining the sovereignty to self-harm.
I want this country to be able to make its own mind up without being dictated to by a foreign power.
If the country votes, democratically for someone I don't like then that's the will of the people expressed through the ballot box. We must be free to make our own mistakes.
I go along with this. Except we didn't have to leave the EU to self-harm. We did that IN LEAVING the EU. All along we had the sovereignty and necessary "control" to screw ourselves over.
Furthermore when an EU member state does chose to exercise that "control" to screw itself over, Eurosceptics point to it as an argument for why the EU is failing. It's an incoherent position.
I'll put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU (as seems very possible right now), will Leavers consider that a price worth paying?
Some will. But many (like the esteemed Casino Royale of this parish) will walk around like the figure in Munch's The Scream, moaning what the f*ck have I done?
If B follows A, that does not necessarily mean that A caused B.
One thing is for certain, even if we did rejoin the EU we would never join the Euro
Countries joining the EU don't have a choice iirc.
I see Croatia still hasn't joined the Euro.
Only a matter of time. All they need to do is fudge the criteria a little bit further.
Have you been there recently? I was there earlier in the year and I'm going back next month on business. I'll only bother packing Euros in my wallet. Just about everything is priced and paid in euros - and it was even before they joined the EU.
I was in Stockholm recently and found it more or less impossible to spend Swedish Krona, everywhere was electronic and most refused cash from bars to taxis. The question of what currency to use may well be obselete shortly, and the Euro does have a solid currency status forged in stressful times. It may well be not so long before we use multiple currencies in this country, a bit like the parallel use of US dollars in parts of latin America.
Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.
Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.
In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.
Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?
I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.
Macron is a Blairite. The similarities - personal as well as political - are extraordinary.
Thank you Peter - but poor France.... a Blairite. Oh dear!
Macron is a Tory? Hm... maybe he's not all that bad.
Pourquoi n'êtes-vous pas allé rejoindre les Tories, Emmanuel? [blame google]
And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.
As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.
TLs need to be put on suicide watch.
I have been regularly asking Leavers on pb whether they would now prefer Britain out of the EU and Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister or Britain still in the EU with David Cameron as Prime Minister. So far they are sticking to their preference for Brexit, even with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But we'll see whether this line holds indefinitely.
I know you won't accept this as an answer, but mine would be David Cameron as PM with Britain out of the EU. What you're really looking for is a bit of Bregret from me, but I don't have any, and I don't see a link: Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Labour leader well before we voted to Leave and I think his election surge was largely based on anti-austerity and a dire Tory campaign.
Osborne could easily have lost to him in GE2020 in a Remain scenario, and we'd only have had another 18-24 months of Cameron. But I'd be perfectly happy if Cameron came back as PM in future once we've left (he won't of course).
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I don't think Leaving the EU is crazy.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
Half-in/half-out was crazy. It had to be resolved to either In or Out, and since virtually nobody was prepared to argue for In, Out was always likely to win eventually.
Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.
Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.
In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.
Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?
I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.
Macron is a Blairite. The similarities - personal as well as political - are extraordinary.
Thank you Peter - but poor France.... a Blairite. Oh dear!
Macron is a Tory? Hm... maybe he's not all that bad.
Pourquoi n'êtes-vous pas allé rejoindre les Tories, Emmanuel? [blame google]
Surement les Blairites ne sont pas des Tories?
You're having a laugh, surely?
Not as big as your last one. Tyson will be relieved.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
There has been very little change in support for a unification over the years, and it is far lower than the nationalist vote share.
The case will be made, and it will unify. Just a matter of time.
A very long way to go, looking at those numbers.
Interesting how support for the Union strengthened between 2006 and 2008. I suppose a perceived Brexit-induced recession for the UK could reverse that and support for Scottish independence moved a lot during the run up to that referendum.
And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.
As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.
TLs need to be put on suicide watch.
I have been regularly asking Leavers on pb whether they would now prefer Britain out of the EU and Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister or Britain still in the EU with David Cameron as Prime Minister. So far they are sticking to their preference for Brexit, even with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But we'll see whether this line holds indefinitely.
I know you won't accept this as an answer, but mine would be David Cameron as PM with Britain out of the EU. What you're really looking for is a bit of Bregret from me, but I don't have any, and I don't see a link: Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Labour leader well before we voted to Leave and I think his election surge was largely based on anti-austerity and a dire Tory campaign.
Osborne could easily have lost to him in GE2020 in a Remain scenario, and we'd only have had another 18-24 months of Cameron. But I'd be perfectly happy if Cameron came back as PM in future once we've left (he won't of course).
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I don't think Leaving the EU is crazy.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
Half-in/half-out was crazy. It had to be resolved to either In or Out, and since virtually nobody was prepared to argue for In, Out was always likely to win eventually.
well maybe
but I'd say across Europe the biggest problem for the federalists was the federalists
they pushed an agenda instead of letting it evolve at its own pace and take people with them
And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.
As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.
TLs need to be put on suicide watch.
I have been regularly asking Leavers on pb whether they would now prefer Britain out of the EU and Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister or Britain still in the EU with David Cameron as Prime Minister. So far they are sticking to their preference for Brexit, even with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But we'll see whether this line holds indefinitely.
I know you won't accept this as an answer, but mine would be David Cameron as PM with Britain out of the EU. What you're really looking for is a bit of Bregret from me, but I don't have any, and I don't see a link: Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Labour leader well before we voted to Leave and I think his election surge was largely based on anti-austerity and a dire Tory campaign.
Osborne could easily have lost to him in GE2020 in a Remain scenario, and we'd only have had another 18-24 months of Cameron. But I'd be perfectly happy if Cameron came back as PM in future once we've left (he won't of course).
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I don't think Leaving the EU is crazy.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
Half-in/half-out was crazy. It had to be resolved to either In or Out, and since virtually nobody was prepared to argue for In, Out was always likely to win eventually.
well maybe
but I'd say across Europe the biggest problem for the federalists was the federalists
they pushed an agenda instead of letting it evelove at its own pace and take people with them
The federalists in the UK had given up until Brexit shook the kaleidoscope.
One thing is for certain, even if we did rejoin the EU we would never join the Euro
Countries joining the EU don't have a choice iirc.
I see Croatia still hasn't joined the Euro.
Only a matter of time. All they need to do is fudge the criteria a little bit further.
Have you been there recently? I was there earlier in the year and I'm going back next month on business. I'll only bother packing Euros in my wallet. Just about everything is priced and paid in euros - and it was even before they joined the EU.
I was in Stockholm recently and found it more or less impossible to spend Swedish Krona, everywhere was electronic and most refused cash from bars to taxis. The question of what currency to use may well be obselete shortly, and the Euro does have a solid currency status forged in stressful times. It may well be not so long before we use multiple currencies in this country, a bit like the parallel use of US dollars in parts of latin America.
My invoices offer Sterling and Bitcoin. I put bitcoin on almost as a gimmick and a talking point a few years ago and I was quite surprised when I got my first remittance that way.
Now probably 10% of my invoiced income is settled in that currency.
... I truly believe the road the DUP is leading us down is one signposted Dublin but I fear the unionist electorate won't realise until we're metaphorically well past Dundalk.
As someone brought up a Unionist, Brexit has already forced me to walk that road. It is not as scary as it seems
And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.
As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.
TLs need to be put on suicide watch.
I have been regularly asking Leavers on pb whether they would now prefer Britain out of the EU and Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister or Britain still in the EU with David Cameron as Prime Minister. So far they are sticking to their preference for Brexit, even with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But we'll see whether this line holds indefinitely.
I know you won't accept this as an answer, but mine would if Cameron came back as PM in future once we've left (he won't of course).
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I don't think Leaving the EU is crazy.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
Half-in/half-out was crazy. It had to be resolved to either In or Out, and since virtually nobody was prepared to argue for In, Out was always likely to win eventually.
well maybe
but I'd say across Europe the biggest problem for the federalists was the federalists
they pushed an agenda instead of letting it evelove at its own pace and take people with them
The federalists in the UK had given up until Brexit shook the kaleidoscope.
chortle
no they hadnt, that;s why federalist Cameron called the referendum
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Like Brexitrumpcorbyn, the polls are against it and all we know about voters and their traditional habits tells us it won't happen, until the campaign starts and maybe it does.
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Its as inevitable as the triumph of communism
Most southerners like the concept until they realise it will radically increase their tax bills and the Dail will be controlled by SF or the DUP since adding 40% more voters overnight means the Nordies will hold the balance of power in a coalition system.
So if 65 million Brits wince at a £1billion of pork, 4.5 million paddies will screaming for the border back
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Like Brexitrumpcorbyn, the polls are against it and all we know about voters and their traditional habits tells us it won't happen, until the campaign starts and maybe it does.
It didn't happen in Scotland, Trump and Corbyn were at general elections and neither won the popular vote which is required in a referendum and the pro Brexit vote was built on a similar coalition to the Unionist vote in NI
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Like Brexitrumpcorbyn, the polls are against it and all we know about voters and their traditional habits tells us it won't happen, until the campaign starts and maybe it does.
It didn't happen in Scotland, Trump and Corbyn were at general elections and none won the popular vote and the pro Brexit vote was built on a similar coalition to the Unionist vote in NI
Well, indeed. Everything's a special case. General rules are inadmissible. Campaigns matter, hugely.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
One thing Brexit has done is expose the irredentism of the unionists in both Northern Ireland and England who believe the solution to this absurdity lies in a de facto reversal of Irish independence by breaking it away from the EU. The status quo is becoming unsustainable.
The Irish must act in their own best interests.
This election has been a very good one for Unionists, however. And that's not surprising. The EU is all about breaking national identity down. Brexit strengthens the Union.
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Its as inevitable as the triumph of communism
Most southerners like the concept until they realise it will radically increase their tax bills and the Dail will be controlled by SF or the DUP since adding 40% more voters overnight means the Nordies will hold the balance of power in a coalition system.
So if 65 million Brits wince at a £1billion of pork, 4.5 million paddies will screaming for the border back
I heard the same about the West Germans not wanting to take back East Germany.
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Like Brexitrumpcorbyn, the polls are against it and all we know about voters and their traditional habits tells us it won't happen, until the campaign starts and maybe it does.
It didn't happen in Scotland, Trump and Corbyn were at general elections and none won the popular vote and the pro Brexit vote was built on a similar coalition to the Unionist vote in NI
Well, indeed. Everything's a special case. General rules are inadmissible. Campaigns matter, hugely.
In any case it is only powersharing at Stormont which has prevented a return to violence, if Northern Ireland narrowly voted for reunification with the Republic due to Catholic votes and the Irish government decided to scrap Stormont and add NI MPs to the Dail instead with direct rule from Dublin there would be a risk of loyalist paramilitaries launching terrorist attacks on the Irish capital as much as there would be a risk of the IRA launching terrorist attacks on London again if Stormont was scrapped by the UK government and direct rule imposed from Westminster
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Its as inevitable as the triumph of communism
Most southerners like the concept until they realise it will radically increase their tax bills and the Dail will be controlled by SF or the DUP since adding 40% more voters overnight means the Nordies will hold the balance of power in a coalition system.
So if 65 million Brits wince at a £1billion of pork, 4.5 million paddies will screaming for the border back
I heard the same about the West Germans not wanting to take back East Germany.
I lived in Germany when the Wessis moaned non stop about a 7.5% tax hike, billions needing to be pumped in to a dysfunctional economy and a dislike for Ossis. The Eastern population fell off a cliff and even today the unity has severe cracks, the East votes in extreme parties like the AfD and Die Linke and the economic base is fragile.
West Germany had one of the world;s strongest economies when it took over the East
Ireland's economy is nowhere near as strong.
In any event these days the RoI would have to ask the Germans permission for unity as it sits in the Euro and has to obey the rules on deficits
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Its as inevitable as the triumph of communism
Most southerners like the concept until they realise it will radically increase their tax bills and the Dail will be controlled by SF or the DUP since adding 40% more voters overnight means the Nordies will hold the balance of power in a coalition system.
So if 65 million Brits wince at a £1billion of pork, 4.5 million paddies will screaming for the border back
I heard the same about the West Germans not wanting to take back East Germany.
I lived in Germany when the Wessis moaned non stop about a 7.5% tax hike, billions needing to be pumped in to a dysfunctional economy and a dislike for Ossis. The Eastern population fell off a cliff and even today the unity has severe cracks, the East votes in extreme parties like the AfD and Die Linke and the economic base is fragile.
Is the comparison predicated on the idea that British unionism is as damaging to an economy and society as communism?
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
If anything they are going backwards.
the fastest growing segment of the NI popultion is those who profess no religion, its why the dull sectarian headcount is becoming a less reliable indicator
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
Demographic change is so often the God That Failed (as Sean Trende put it). It was going to kill off the US Republicans, finish the Conservative Party, and deliver a United Ireland.
The voters took a different view.
And that's good. Politicians should expect to have to work for their majorities, and not assume that history inevitably favours them.
I don't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. The Unionist vote in a border poll would be significantly greater than support for Unionist parties in normal elections, and as Northern Ireland gets more diverse I don't see those outside the Protestant/Catholic split being more Nationalist than Unionist.
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Its as inevitable as the triumph of communism
Most southerners like the concept until they realise it will radically increase their tax bills and the Dail will be controlled by SF or the DUP since adding 40% more voters overnight means the Nordies will hold the balance of power in a coalition system.
So if 65 million Brits wince at a £1billion of pork, 4.5 million paddies will screaming for the border back
I heard the same about the West Germans not wanting to take back East Germany.
I lived in Germany when the Wessis moaned non stop about a 7.5% tax hike, billions needing to be pumped in to a dysfunctional economy and a dislike for Ossis. The Eastern population fell off a cliff and even today the unity has severe cracks, the East votes in extreme parties like the AfD and Die Linke and the economic base is fragile.
Is the comparison predicated on the idea that British unionism is as damaging to an economy and society as communism?
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
A reunified Ireland caused by Catholic votes could well see loyalist terrorist groups launch a similar campaign of violence in the Republic as the IRA launched on the mainland UK before the Good Friday agreement
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
If anything they are going backwards.
Seeing as the Nationalists will need to more than double support for unification to have a chance, I don't see it happening in a meaningful timescale. This is not like indyref.
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
If anything they are going backwards.
Seeing as the Nationalists will need to more than double support for unification to have a chance, I don't see it happening in a meaningful timescale. This is not like indyref.
the biggest impediment to a UI ( money aside ) is Nationalism itself
for nearly a century the marriage proposal to Northern Unionists has been marry me or Ill blow your head off
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
A reunified Ireland caused by Catholic votes could well see loyalist terrorist groups launch a similar campaign of violence in the Republic as the IRA launched on the mainland UK before the Good Friday agreement
Which is why the EU was so important. Since both sides of the border were in the EU the border became less important.
There really is going to be big pressure on Con and DUP MPs - on key votes they really are all going to have to turn up - with presumably the whips just giving permission for the odd one or two to be absent in really exceptional circumstances.
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
If you stand on the banks of the Rhine, you can point to the other side and say, that's Germany, the people living there are Germans. This side is France and the people living here are French. That's a normal border. The border in Ireland exists so a particular sort of people get a space they think is theirs. The other people think it's meaningless at best. The Good Friday Agreement was drawn up so the border is retained for those to whom it is important, while those it irritates can mostly ignore it. The border becomes largely a state of mind. It will be harder to maintain that ambiguity when we leave the EU and Ireland doesn't. Either it will drive the North and South further apart, or the irritation with it will drive the two parts closer together. I am not expecting a sudden reversal through a border poll. Any change will be gradual.
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
A reunified Ireland caused by Catholic votes could well see loyalist terrorist groups launch a similar campaign of violence in the Republic as the IRA launched on the mainland UK before the Good Friday agreement
Which is why the EU was so important. Since both sides of the border were in the EU the border became less important.
I don't remember the IRA stopping their campaign of violence in the late 70s, 80s or 90s because the UK was in the EEC/EU. Indeed Northern Ireland was only created because of loyalist violence at the prospect of being made a part of the Irish Free State
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
If anything they are going backwards.
the fastest growing segment of the NI popultion is those who profess no religion, its why the dull sectarian headcount is becoming a less reliable indicator
If sanity can indeed break through in NI then there is hope for us all everywhere.
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
If anything they are going backwards.
the fastest growing segment of the NI popultion is those who profess no religion, its why the dull sectarian headcount is becoming a less reliable indicator
If sanity can indeed break through in NI then there is hope for us all everywhere.
First vote of the new Parliament - on Lab amendment to Queens Speech:
Lab amendment loses by 323 to 309 - Govt maj = 14
Con + DUP = 328 less 2 Speakers less 2 tellers = 324. So one MP missing.
Opposition = 315 less 2 Speakers less 2 tellers = 311. So two MPs missing.
Very good turnout on both sides.
(Assumes Hermon voted with Opposition - can anyone confirm?)
Have there been any significant changes in the number of peers since the election?
Not really.
- Two are now out as didn't attend in last session.
- Approx 10 who were on leave of absence have now returned - not sure of precise procedure here - ie how leave of absence is renewed - though there is still a batch on leave of absence as before.
- One new Con Peer (Baroness Wyld) - appointed by Cameron but wasn't allowed to take seat until this session.
- May has appointed one new Con Peer to be a Scottish Minister (not yet taken seat but should do any day)
New State of Parties will be:
Con 256, Lab 202, LD 102, Crossbench 176, Others 48, Bishops 25, Total 809
So Lab + LD now have a lead of 48 over Con - the lowest since 2010 but still too much to overcome on vast majority of votes.
I am surprised May doesn't appoint a few more - if she could get that lead down to say 30 (ie net 18 new Con Peers) then the Government would win far more votes.
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
A reunified Ireland caused by Catholic votes could well see loyalist terrorist groups launch a similar campaign of violence in the Republic as the IRA launched on the mainland UK before the Good Friday agreement
Which is why the EU was so important. Since both sides of the border were in the EU the border became less important.
I don't remember the IRA stopping their campaign of violence in the late 70s, 80s or 90s because the UK was in the EEC/EU. Indeed Northern Ireland was only created because of loyalist violence at the prospect of being made a part of the Irish Free State
It was a necessary pre-condition for the Good Friday Agreement.
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
If you stand on the banks of the Rhine, you can point to the other side and say, that's Germany, the people living there are Germans. This side is France and the people living here are French. That's a normal border.
Um , what about the Rhineland? Cologne straddles both banks.
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
A reunified Ireland caused by Catholic votes could well see loyalist terrorist groups launch a similar campaign of violence in the Republic as the IRA launched on the mainland UK before the Good Friday agreement
Which is why the EU was so important. Since both sides of the border were in the EU the border became less important.
I don't remember the IRA stopping their campaign of violence in the late 70s, 80s or 90s because the UK was in the EEC/EU. Indeed Northern Ireland was only created because of loyalist violence at the prospect of being made a part of the Irish Free State
It was a necessary pre-condition for the Good Friday Agreement.
The Irish border has effectively been passport free since 1923
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
If you stand on the banks of the Rhine, you can point to the other side and say, that's Germany, the people living there are Germans. This side is France and the people living here are French. That's a normal border.
Um , what about the Rhineland? Cologne straddles both banks.
Strasbourg maybe? Wars were fought over that border, but they were about nationality and territory. It's a normal border in that respect. Even those drawing up the original border in Ireland thought it was an arbitrary line . That's because it wasn't done to create a country. It's aim was and remains to establish a space where protestants could sure of being protestant.
If Scotland ever becomes independent, the border is clear. I think we can forgo Berwick.
Give it time. The Trend is their Friend (well... for Nationalists perhaps)
If anything they are going backwards.
the fastest growing segment of the NI popultion is those who profess no religion, its why the dull sectarian headcount is becoming a less reliable indicator
If sanity can indeed break through in NI then there is hope for us all everywhere.
Not sure that is true, moderate Unionists, Nationalists and Alliance parties have been squeezed out in favour of the harder line DUP and SF.
Considering that it was financial ineptitude by the DUP that brought down Stormont, and they refuse to accept any culpability, I do hope some decent accountants are watching where the new bung goes.
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
If you stand on the banks of the Rhine, you can point to the other side and say, that's Germany, the people living there are Germans. This side is France and the people living here are French. That's a normal border.
Um , what about the Rhineland? Cologne straddles both banks.
Strasbourg maybe? Wars were fought over that border, but they were about nationality and territory. It's a normal border in that respect. Even those drawing up the original border in Ireland thought it was an arbitrary line . That's because it wasn't done to create a country. It's aim was and remains to establish a space where protestants could sure of being protestant.
If Scotland ever becomes independent, the border is clear. I think we can forgo Berwick.
Why undermine a half-reasonable argument with a non-sequitur? Berwick has been part of England for over 500 years; I don't think it's up for debate.
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
If you stand on the banks of the Rhine, you can point to the other side and say, that's Germany, the people living there are Germans. This side is France and the people living here are French. That's a normal border.
Um , what about the Rhineland? Cologne straddles both banks.
Strasbourg maybe? Wars were fought over that border, but they were about nationality and territory. It's a normal border in that respect. Even those drawing up the original border in Ireland thought it was an arbitrary line . That's because it wasn't done to create a country. It's aim was and remains to establish a space where protestants could sure of being protestant.
If Scotland ever becomes independent, the border is clear. I think we can forgo Berwick.
Why undermine a half-reasonable argument with a non-sequitur? Berwick has been part of England for over 500 years; I don't think it's up for debate.
They did a vote some years ago in Berwick, that Scotland won...
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
If you stand on the banks of the Rhine, you can point to the other side and say, that's Germany, the people living there are Germans. This side is France and the people living here are French. That's a normal border.
Um , what about the Rhineland? Cologne straddles both banks.
Strasbourg maybe? Wars were fought over that border, but they were about nationality and territory. It's a normal border in that respect. Even those drawing up the original border in Ireland thought it was an arbitrary line . That's because it wasn't done to create a country. It's aim was and remains to establish a space where protestants could sure of being protestant.
If Scotland ever becomes independent, the border is clear. I think we can forgo Berwick.
Why undermine a half-reasonable argument with a non-sequitur? Berwick has been part of England for over 500 years; I don't think it's up for debate.
It's not. The historical quibble illustrates the fact that Scotland as a territory (and a land and an idea) has been well defined for a thousand years. Northern Ireland still isn't.
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
If you stand on the banks of the Rhine, you can point to the other side and say, that's Germany, the people living there are Germans. This side is France and the people living here are French. That's a normal border.
Um , what about the Rhineland? Cologne straddles both banks.
Strasbourg maybe? Wars were fought over that border, but they were about nationality and territory. It's a normal border in that respect. Even those drawing up the original border in Ireland thought it was an arbitrary line . That's because it wasn't done to create a country. It's aim was and remains to establish a space where protestants could sure of being protestant.
If Scotland ever becomes independent, the border is clear. I think we can forgo Berwick.
Why undermine a half-reasonable argument with a non-sequitur? Berwick has been part of England for over 500 years; I don't think it's up for debate.
It's not. The historical quibble illustrates the fact that Scotland as a territory (and a land and an idea) has been well defined for a thousand years. Northern Ireland still isn't.
When's the time cutoff? Is there a countdown clock somewhere for easy reference?
In the immediate term it seems so. OTOH the motivation is probably that Brexit is so chaotic that further disruption should be avoided, which isn't a good foundation for the future.
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
I thought the whole concern was about having a border? Yet you are saying if it doesn't exist there is no Northern Ireland.
If you stand on the banks of the Rhine, you can point to the other side and say, that's Germany, the people living there are Germans. This side is France and the people living here are French. That's a normal border.
Um , what about the Rhineland? Cologne straddles both banks.
Strasbourg maybe? Wars were fought over that border, but they were about nationality and territory. It's a normal border in that respect. Even those drawing up the original border in Ireland thought it was an arbitrary line . That's because it wasn't done to create a country. It's aim was and remains to establish a space where protestants could sure of being protestant.
If Scotland ever becomes independent, the border is clear. I think we can forgo Berwick.
Why undermine a half-reasonable argument with a non-sequitur? Berwick has been part of England for over 500 years; I don't think it's up for debate.
It's not. The historical quibble illustrates the fact that Scotland as a territory (and a land and an idea) has been well defined for a thousand years. Northern Ireland still isn't.
When's the time cutoff? Is there a countdown clock somewhere for easy reference?
First vote of the new Parliament - on Lab amendment to Queens Speech:
Lab amendment loses by 323 to 309 - Govt maj = 14
Con + DUP = 328 less 2 Speakers less 2 tellers = 324. So one MP missing.
Opposition = 315 less 2 Speakers less 2 tellers = 311. So two MPs missing.
Very good turnout on both sides.
(Assumes Hermon voted with Opposition - can anyone confirm?)
Confirmed - voted with Labour
I really hope the DUP can boot her out next time. Having voted with Corbyn for 5 years there should be plenty to work with.
I think this will go down like a cup of cold sick with North Down's voters.
Lab amendment was on public sector pay and cuts etc.
Is it possible that whilst she supported that amendment she might still support Govt on certain other votes?
Lady Sylvia is a Remainer and usually pro-Labour but I can't see her voting to help install Corbyn as PM given his role as chief apologist for the murderers of her husband's officers in the 80's.
Kate Hoey on the other hand is DUP in all but name.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opinion
Bobajobl has decided - the people must do as theyre told
because nobody has thought of it before
This election has been a very good one for Unionists, however. And that's not surprising. The EU is all about breaking national identity down. Brexit strengthens the Union.
But they'd actually give the Tories a technical majority on the 2017 result without the DUP. Without SF they'd have a majority of 5, by my count....
SF votes = 238,915
Ancient art of knife massage helps Taiwanese stay sharp
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-23810529/ancient-art-of-knife-massage-helps-taiwanese-stay-sharp
but I'd say across Europe the biggest problem for the federalists was the federalists
they pushed an agenda instead of letting it evolve at its own pace and take people with them
Now probably 10% of my invoiced income is settled in that currency.
no they hadnt, that;s why federalist Cameron called the referendum
Fear of disruption will be enough, even when Protestants are the minority. I also expect the Republic's enthusiasm for unification will diminish over time.
Lab amendment loses by 323 to 309 - Govt maj = 14
Con + DUP = 328 less 2 Speakers less 2 tellers = 324. So one MP missing.
Opposition = 315 less 2 Speakers less 2 tellers = 311. So two MPs missing.
Very good turnout on both sides.
(Assumes Hermon voted with Opposition - can anyone confirm?)
Most southerners like the concept until they realise it will radically increase their tax bills and the Dail will be controlled by SF or the DUP since adding 40% more voters overnight means the Nordies will hold the balance of power in a coalition system.
So if 65 million Brits wince at a £1billion of pork, 4.5 million paddies will screaming for the border back
It's about the border for Northern Ireland. Without it Northern Ireland ceases to exist. The Good Friday Agreement is ambiguous about the border. It's going to be a lot harder to maintain that ambiguity after Brexit. Those that think it a gerrymander will be less tolerant of it. It won't necessarily divide Ireland further, although it might.
West Germany had one of the world;s strongest economies when it took over the East
Ireland's economy is nowhere near as strong.
In any event these days the RoI would have to ask the Germans permission for unity as it sits in the Euro and has to obey the rules on deficits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northern_Ireland_Life_and_Times_Survey_constitutional_preference.png
The voters took a different view.
And that's good. Politicians should expect to have to work for their majorities, and not assume that history inevitably favours them.
https://commonsvotes.digiminster.com/
for nearly a century the marriage proposal to Northern Unionists has been marry me or Ill blow your head off
doesnt really work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo
Have there been any significant changes in the number of peers since the election?
Her maiden name was Paisley
I wonder who the three missing MPs were?
There really is going to be big pressure on Con and DUP MPs - on key votes they really are all going to have to turn up - with presumably the whips just giving permission for the odd one or two to be absent in really exceptional circumstances.
Is it possible that whilst she supported that amendment she might still support Govt on certain other votes?
- Two are now out as didn't attend in last session.
- Approx 10 who were on leave of absence have now returned - not sure of precise procedure here - ie how leave of absence is renewed - though there is still a batch on leave of absence as before.
- One new Con Peer (Baroness Wyld) - appointed by Cameron but wasn't allowed to take seat until this session.
- May has appointed one new Con Peer to be a Scottish Minister (not yet taken seat but should do any day)
New State of Parties will be:
Con 256, Lab 202, LD 102, Crossbench 176, Others 48, Bishops 25, Total 809
So Lab + LD now have a lead of 48 over Con - the lowest since 2010 but still too much to overcome on vast majority of votes.
I am surprised May doesn't appoint a few more - if she could get that lead down to say 30 (ie net 18 new Con Peers) then the Government would win far more votes.
If Scotland ever becomes independent, the border is clear. I think we can forgo Berwick.
Considering that it was financial ineptitude by the DUP that brought down Stormont, and they refuse to accept any culpability, I do hope some decent accountants are watching where the new bung goes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515350/Berwick-Tweed-votes-leave-England-join-Scotland-better-public-services.html
Is there a countdown clock somewhere for easy reference?
Kate Hoey on the other hand is DUP in all but name.