A United Ireland, A bad Idea

Discussion in 'UK and World News' started by classic33, Jun 8, 2018.

  1. classic33

    classic33 Well-Known Member

    An Irish unity poll in Northern Ireland would be divisive and "a bad idea", Irish PM Leo Varadkar has said.

    On Thursday, former NI first minister Peter Robinson said any future border poll on Northern Ireland's future in the UK could not be conducted on the basis of a simple majority.

    He said the idea of a "majority of one" would lead to chaos.

    Mr Varadkar said "a simple majority is enough", but questioned whether that would be a "good thing".

    The taoiseach made his comment ahead of becoming the first Irish prime minister to visit the headquarters of the Orange Order in Belfast.

    "I think a border poll would be defeated and very divisive," said Mr Varadkar.

    "We should be respecting the primacy of the Good Friday Agreement and, at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement, is power-sharing within Northern Ireland, ever-increasing cooperation within the north and south and peace in Britain and Ireland."

    Mr Varadkar said that even though the Good Friday Agreement provides for a border poll to be carried by a majority of one, the time or the conditions were not right.

    "I think the focus should be on getting the institutions up and running again, rather than focusing on a border poll."

    Efforts to restore power sharing in Northern Ireland have so far failed, after the Executive collapsed 17 months ago.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44406029

    With over a quarter of the population of Northern Ireland likely to vote for a united Ireland, the ongoing fight amongst those elected, for power and any real chance of a United Ireland resting on who has the say in what people are allowed to do. It's not looking very hopeful at this stage.

    On the other hand, Ian Paisley Junior, was. and is, an advocate of an Irish passport after the people of the UK decided to leave the EU.
     
  2. Welsh dragon

    Welsh dragon Senior Member Staff Member

    Do people in the south want a united Ireland? I don't think so. I doubt very much that it will happen.
     
  3. Highlander

    Highlander Active Member

    Firstly, it's called Ireland, because that's where Irish people live. It's not England nor Scotland, and they have fought English rule, non stop for seven hundred years.....non stop! To rid themselves of Westminster.
    And you doubt they want a united Ireland?
    Do you realise, your being sold a pup? You should not believe the gutter press or your government, just look at the facts.
    The Sunningdale accord, a predecessor of the Mitchell Accord, was exactly the minimum the republicans would accept to stand down the IRA. Lord Falconer lied to the UK parliament to stop this moving forward in 1969. A time where catholic men and women had no right to vote or work, in your democratic law abiding fascist state. But don't you worry, you have voted to implement the same, or your children, and future generations, your going to get what they fought to rid themselves.
    I could go on, but I know your not interested.

    Why do you think, when the BBC reviewed the speeches of Gerry Adams, would his voice be cut off....silenced......because truth stands on its own merits.
    Why do you think today, independant voices aren't heard?
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2018
  4. Highlander

    Highlander Active Member

    A independant referendum, covered by UN election monitors, with the proviso, and future threats or trouble from the Duke of Cumberlands Orange Order, its disbanded and the members ruthlessly jailed, for thirty years.

    It's only a matter of time, and Ireland will be whole, again. Just as the stolen lands and estates in Ireland, taken back, from English gentry and mass murderers, and redistributed to the nation and nationals of Ireland.

    Today, nine tenths of Scotland, I would not be allowed to own as it's tied up in estates, stolen land. Today families can look at but not allowed to tread on there own confiscated land. Just ask the Duke of Sutherland, Lord Burton Earl of Elgin, the Duke of Cambridgeshire the Duke of Westminster....the biggest estate in Scotland, all thieves and rogues. If your foreign, you can own land in Scotland, not if your Scottish it's very difficult. Renting isn't a problem, serfdom!
     
  5. OP
    OP
    classic33

    classic33 Well-Known Member

    The church is the biggest landowner in Scotland.

    The lairds owned the land, not those below them.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    classic33

    classic33 Well-Known Member

    To date, the majority say "No". But the history is being forgotten, on all sides. If they accept The Six(a United Ireland), they double the countries population at a stroke. But many of those in The Six have said they will remove themselves to the UK mainland rather than stay on the Island of Ireland. For at least 20%, the last time the question was asked, their desination would be Scotland, on religous grounds. Could an Independent Scotland support nearly One & quarter million refugees, almost over overnight. Chances are they'd not be able.

    A countrys name isn't defined by the people who live there. If that were the case why isn't Austrailia called Ireland. Irish people live there. The live in Scotland, England, Yorkshire, & Wales. Not to mention America, who gave the Irish Free State their second President.
     
    Welsh dragon likes this.
  7. Highlander

    Highlander Active Member

    Wrong. On both points.
    The lands were owned by the King of Scotland and held by Lairds Earls, Dukes, Morimors Thains, in trust. The king held no lands.

    Estates were created with English law to assist with the clearances.

    Even in the seventies it was still on going on the Black Isle and Insurance companies.

    No of course you would be interested, unless pique is involved.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2018
  8. OP
    OP
    classic33

    classic33 Well-Known Member

    There's been no king of Scotland for the last 500 years though.
     
  9. Highlander

    Highlander Active Member

    Wrong.....I know one gentleman who claims the throne, and calls himself King of Scotland.

    But Charles the second was the last rightful heir....1720. Certainly not five hundred years ago.

    This Goth Saxa Coborg, usurper, installed by the same terror group to paid for Cromwells three mercenary armies.....(just as today, they pay for the Syrian mercenaries)and only to enable these vermin to change laws passed by parliament and royal assent prior to the murder of the rightful king of England. Laws passed by Westminster and the real King three hundred years prior.......because that's they only way, these Zionist vermin could get back into these island nations.

    Wonder why Gvernment, Education and history doesn't teach people there own history?
     
  10. OP
    OP
    classic33

    classic33 Well-Known Member

    James VI and I was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death in 1625. The kingdoms of Scotland and England were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciaries, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union.

    Charles II (29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685)[c] was king of England, Scotland and Ireland.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice