DBChat: Northern Ireland Troubles.

ninebucks

Banned
Dear, oh dear! The recent peace talks have just collapsed, and, if recent history is anything to go by, it'll be another five or ten years before the Republicans and Free-Statists get back round the table... Meanwhile, in Belfast and Drogheda, people are being shot in the streets.

What should we in the URGB be doing? What should Éire be doing? What should the US and the various discordant nations of Europe be doing?
 

ninebucks

Banned
News from Whitehall just in, President Sayle has just slammed the Irish government for refusing to do enough to protect the pro-British residents in the North.

Thoughts? (OOC: bump)
 
Hmm, I'd recommend the PM's current stance: Return the Northern Counties to British Parliamentary control. Or at least let them have a referendum. The President doesn't seem too keen on it though, and the Lords have to approve the legislation so that's probably out.

And that's if we can get the King of Éire to agree. Ah well. One can dream.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Hmm, I'd recommend the PM's current stance: Return the Northern Counties to British Parliamentary control. Or at least let them have a referendum. The President doesn't seem too keen on it though, and the Lords have to approve the legislation so that's probably out.

And that's if we can get the King of Éire to agree. Ah well. One can dream.

It hasn't been 'the Lords' since the 1920s, its the 'Supreme Assembley of Representatives' - sure, the SAR is more conservative than the Commons, but its a tad unfair to compare them to the aristocratic pre-Chartist House of Lords.

The Irish King has repeatedly made comments about how Ireland is one nation indivisible, but he's just a figurehead: Irish nationalism penetrates the entire establishment, unfortunately...
 
Well, no offense, but it's not as though the United Republic of Great Britain is much better with the Scottish and Welsh Monarchists. Say what you will about the old order, but the kings respected their rights far better than the Republic has.
 
Well, no offense, but it's not as though the United Republic of Great Britain is much better with the Scottish and Welsh Monarchists. Say what you will about the old order, but the kings respected their rights far better than the Republic has.

It's better nowadays than back with the Kings havin' Irish lined up an' shot like murderers, when they committed crimes as little as stealing bread from British Army Supply trucks cus' they were starvin.'
 
It's better nowadays than back with the Kings havin' Irish lined up an' shot like murderers, when they committed crimes as little as stealing bread from British Army Supply trucks cus' they were starvin.'

Well, that was a British king you're talking about. I was talking about the Irish Ri. Or, as the ScotsMons would prefer, the Gaelic Ri.
 
News from Whitehall just in, President Sayle has just slammed the Irish government for refusing to do enough to protect the pro-British residents in the North.

Thoughts? (OOC: bump)
None of this would have happened under the "special relationship" while it existed between President Roy Hattersley (GB) and President Al Gore (D). If anything, the Gore administration was willing to send U.N. peacekeeping forces into the region to "maintain the peace". This would have at least prevented the worst of the sectarian violence....
 
It hasn't been 'the Lords' since the 1920s, its the 'Supreme Assembley of Representatives' - sure, the SAR is more conservative than the Commons, but its a tad unfair to compare them to the aristocratic pre-Chartist House of Lords.

The Irish King has repeatedly made comments about how Ireland is one nation indivisible, but he's just a figurehead: Irish nationalism penetrates the entire establishment, unfortunately...

Sorry, my parents still use the old names sometimes. I sometimes slip into it :p. Did you know that the Representatives title was still technically "Lord" until the late 70s?

And please guys, don't turn this into a Republican/Monarchist thread. God knows we've had enough of those.
 

ninebucks

Banned
None of this would have happened under the "special relationship" while it existed between President Roy Hattersley (GB) and President Al Gore (D). If anything, the Gore administration was willing to send U.N. peacekeeping forces into the region to "maintain the peace". This would have at least prevented the worst of the sectarian violence....

Gore may have been the best of a bad bunch, but he was still an American, and America will always be on the side of Ireland, their ideological bedfellow. Case in point, the suggestion of sending in the United Nations, an organisation established by the USA, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire of the Islamic Nation and the Positivist Republic of China following the Third Great War, designed to help spread the ideology of National Positivism, while isolating the Social Democratic nations.

Any peace-keeping mission will need to include an equal number of pink-helmets from the International Conference and blue-helmets from the United Nations.
 
Gore may have been the best of a bad bunch, but he was still an American, and America will always be on the side of Ireland, their ideological bedfellow. Case in point, the suggestion of sending in the United Nations, an organisation established by the USA, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire of the Islamic Nation and the Positivist Republic of China following the Third Great War, designed to help spread the ideology of National Positivism, while isolating the Social Democratic nations.

Any peace-keeping mission will need to include an equal number of pink-helmets from the International Conference and blue-helmets from the United Nations.

Better the UN than the British troops that shot Irish for fun then drank with the protestants! Of course the British stopped slacking off after the bombings in Belfast and Antrim bombings in 1991 and of course the Magharra bombing in 1995, that one had some of the highest casualties.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Better the UN than the British troops that shot Irish for fun then drank with the protestants! Of course the British stopped slacking off after the bombings in Belfast and Antrim bombings in 1991 and of course the Magharra bombing in 1995, that one had some of the highest casualties.

:confused:

What are you talking about? The British haven't had a military presence in Éire since the island seceded from the Old United Kingdom, barring the presence in the diplomatic compound in Dublin...

Its been the Irish army that have been shooting at their own countrymen in the North in an attempt to silence the socialists and republicans and unionists.

Unless you believe all the stories about the British MOD supplying militias and mercenaries in the North? Yes, the North is plagued by just as many pro-British Republican militias as pro-Irish Royalist/Free-Statist/Positivist/etc. militias, and many members of those militias have a background serving with the British Armed Forces or the International Brigades. But that does not make them British soldiers.
 

ninebucks

Banned
OOC Clarification

Britain changed radically in the early years of the century - undergoing huge constitutional reforms and abolishing its monarchy, for most of the past century, the country has defined itself as a Social Democracy.

Ireland seceded, as a whole entity, early in the century, (and apparently became a kingdom - becoming a refuge to the disinherited British royalty?). Much to the consternation of many Irish. The North was a hotspot of anti-Free State activity, and civil strife was widespread. The North is governed from Dublin as a special province, under a semi-permenant state of emergency.

The *Central Powers won the *Great War, as referenced by the continuous existence of the German Empire. There were then two more 'Great Wars'. After these wars, the world was left divided between two ideological camps, the National Positivist United Nations, (USA, Germany, Ireland, etc.), and the Social Democratic International Conference, (Britain, France, Russia, etc.).

Antipathy is widespread between members of these two blocs, which serves to make creating a peace between Ireland and Britain very difficult. The Northern Ireland conflict is thus much more ideologically based than OTL, sectarianism is still a factor, but is overshadowed by the issue of whether one is a National Positivist/pro-Irish or Social Democratic/pro-British.
 
:confused:

What are you talking about? The British haven't had a military presence in Éire since the island seceded from the Old United Kingdom, barring the presence in the diplomatic compound in Dublin...

Its been the Irish army that have been shooting at their own countrymen in the North in an attempt to silence the socialists and republicans and unionists.

Unless you believe all the stories about the British MOD supplying militias and mercenaries in the North? Yes, the North is plagued by just as many pro-British Republican militias as pro-Irish Royalist/Free-Statist/Positivist/etc. militias, and many members of those militias have a background serving with the British Armed Forces or the International Brigades. But that does not make them British soldiers.

Of course I am referring to the militias laddy! There are goddamn one in the same with the brits!
 
Gore may have been the best of a bad bunch, but he was still an American, and America will always be on the side of Ireland, their ideological bedfellow. Case in point, the suggestion of sending in the United Nations, an organisation established by the USA, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire of the Islamic Nation and the Positivist Republic of China following the Third Great War, designed to help spread the ideology of National Positivism, while isolating the Social Democratic nations.

Any peace-keeping mission will need to include an equal number of pink-helmets from the International Conference and blue-helmets from the United Nations.
You speak as if the United States and Great Britain haven't tried to improve political relations since the Charles Lindbergh administration back in the 1940s. Under the Hattersley administration, Foreign Secretary Norman Baker had designed an outline for a peace plan that still hasn't been approved by President Sayle.

If America had continued with the political policies that Great Britain has undergone, military troops would have been still stationed at the Rio Grande and all along the U.S./Mexican border....
 
Top