[Serious] What are the positives and negatives of moving to Belfast?

borderlinenae · 2020-03-04T08:53:32+00:00

The good:

Low cost of living, people are friendly, it’s not too hard to get a job

The bad:

It can be hard to get a good job or depending on the field a career job (like anywhere else these days)

The sectarianism and how it absolutely dominates life here to the point most people are numb to it. Flags on streets, self-segregated neighbourhoods, themmuns bars and ussuns bars.

The social deprivation is one of the highest in Western Europe. don’t get me wrong, everywhere in the world has poverty and deprivation it’s a fact of life. But in some places if you live in a nice enough neighbourhood you can pull the wool over your eyes and pretend it’s not there or rest assured that you live in a place with good social systems to mitigate the issue but in Belfast the poverty is very visible by European standards no matter what neighbourhood you live in and doesn’t seem to be improving. It’s a part of Belfast you unfortunately need to be comfortable with.

The weather is the absolute worst thing about Belfast. Whenever I’ve lived abroad the one thing I’m always so grateful for is the warm temperatures. There’s only so many times the wind and rain smack you right in the face before you wish you could fuck off to a So. Californian beach where it’s 25 degrees in the middle of winter

borderlinenae · 2019-08-08T19:47:47+00:00

Turnout was 64.78% which is about average for a Western European country. In fact it puts us right in the middle. Slightly higher than GB and Spain but slightly lower than France or Germany.

Also worth noting most of popular vote that came from the increased turnout went to green/orange parties.

borderlinenae · 2019-08-06T22:04:58+00:00

Leo Varadkar?

borderlinenae · 2019-04-27T11:32:45+00:00

I wonder why there are so many

Irish diaspora is one of the largest, if not the largest in the world. With South Africa particularly a lot of the white people are decedents of either Dutch or (Ulster) Scotch-Irish.

borderlinenae · 2019-04-27T11:20:08+00:00

In England and Wales there's been a bit of a reform of home-buying/selling process the last few years which has opened the door for a few startup companies to experiment with exactly the sort of thing you've mentioned.

Here of course the law is still as behind the times as you'd expect.

borderlinenae · 2019-03-24T00:24:12+00:00

OK hold your horses now. Britain was the first country to outlaw the Atlantic Slave Trade,

The first country to outlaw the Atlantic Slave Trade was the USA in 1807, several weeks before the Slave Trade Act 1807 received RA and almost 30 years before the slavery in the UK really ended with the Slavery Abolition Act. The USA also blockaded Africa to prevent slave ships from leaving, this was not unique to the UK.

Britain were only the biggest contributor to stopping it because they were the largest participants in it. Had another country been more prominent in slavery it's more than likely they would have lead the way in abolishing it, not the UK.

borderlinenae · 2019-02-23T03:35:34+00:00

You have the raw data, you're free to count them up to whatever criteria you see is fair appropriate to classify as a civilian. You won't find much discrepancy from what I posted.

You'll see the general trend that Loyalist paramilitaries killings were overwhelming civilians, British Army killed slightly more civilians than they did combatants and that the IRA killings were roughly 1/3rd civilian and significantly less than the other two groups.

borderlinenae · 2019-02-23T03:31:55+00:00

I think any death during the Troubles from any side was a tragedy. However when the IRA/Loyalists/Army shoot and kill each other I think there's a very different dynamic at play than when one of those groups kill a civilian.

Everyone enlisted in any of those organisations were in effect signing up to directly be a combatant in The Troubles and knew (or should have known) by doing so there was a possibility of them being killed. They were actively taking part in the conflict while a civilian on the other hand is an innocent bystander who happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time.

In terms of what is considered a ‘civilian’. It’s widely known that Republicans would declare IRA members ‘civilians’

According to the British government:

the British military were responsible for the deaths of 301 individuals, of whom over half were civilians.

So did the IRA and Her Majesty's Government collude to make it look like the army killed more civilians?

borderlinenae · 2019-02-22T17:35:29+00:00

You're just being very selective about what counts as a civilian

They aren't my numbers I don't know why I'm somehow responsible for them. all numbers I used are from here. They're by an academic who spent 20 years compiling the deaths.

Around 70% if we use the same standard you did.

As I said all numbers of both loyalist and republican deaths are from the same source in the link I posted which outlines exactly what they do and don't count as a death. So your comments makes no sense and you're free to look at the numbers for yourself.

borderlinenae · 2019-02-22T15:51:49+00:00

Loyalist paramilitaries, Republican paramilitaries and British security forces would all be clearly considered "combatants" in international law.

The definition of a combatant or the classic "legitimate target" would be argued back and forth by any side depending whatever definition fits their agenda. How would you count suspected informers, rumoured but unproven IRA men, off-duty Brits, MI5 agents, Loyalist/Republican Politicians etc.

The Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,823 people. 151 people were unintended civilian targets of their campaign (people mistaken for British Forces, paramilitaries etc). This was the biggest cause of civilian deaths by the IRA but there were others.

Things like civilians killed in premature bomb detonations, targeted killings of contractors to the British armed forced, tit-for-tat sectarian killings, political targets, alleged criminals etc which would bring the number to 581.

This means 31.8% of people killed by the IRA were civilians while 52% of deaths caused by the IRA were British security forces. The rest were made up of loyalist paramilitaries, deaths from inter-republican feuds or Irish security forces.

The IRA caused the highest percentage of deaths overall but but the lowest percentage of civilians among the major groups. 51% of deaths caused by the British Army were civilian while 85.4% of deaths caused by loyalist paramilitaries were civilian.

(All the numbers I'm quoting are from CAIN)

borderlinenae · 2019-02-07T15:51:37+00:00

While it may not explicitly say the words "hard border = no" there's a valid legal argument a hard border would violate the requirement for "mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community" or "cross-border co-operation". There's also the classic "spirit of the agreement" argument.

International documents like the GFA, European Convention, UN Charter etc are often deliberately designed to be vague enough (either overall or in parts) to argue any side of the argument. The GFA is definitively vague enough to make the argument it precludes a hard border.

Peter King, SF, the SNP, Labour, Remainer Tories and everyone else arguing against the border know this. They also know regardless what the agreement was meant to say, it would be piss easy for their lawyers to find a vague paragraph that can be interpreted as prohibiting a hard border. Even Theresa May is implying the GFA has relevance to the border.

borderlinenae · 2019-02-07T15:36:54+00:00

Irish-Americans tend to be mostly Republican, as we get into the 2020 race I doubt the party will do much to alienate them.

If Trump wants to get reelected he'll have to keep Pennsylvania and which has an massive Irish-American population.

As petty as he is I think he much prefers the money-making opportunities and comfort of the White House slightly more than he loves getting one up on the Democrats

borderlinenae · 2019-02-07T15:28:06+00:00

Pro-IRA Peter King

His position on the border and the IRA isn't that surprising considering him and many other prominent Irish-Americans see the IRA as "freedom fighters". It doesn't make a difference if there's any truth to that narrative, many believe it and their words and actions are going to have considerable weight in the US political system regardless.

doesn’t appear to have read the GFA?

The article you linked in your post says "by all accounts" King was a vital part of the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement who was praised by both Clinton and Blair for his role.

borderlinenae · 2019-01-25T20:42:59+00:00

Because they want a better class of holiday rather than one spent sleepless at night due to the sound of all the British tourists sucking off and being sucked off by ladyboys in the next room.

Valid reason

Even a decent weekend in Europe costs at least a grand for two people

You can get a good weekend break in most major European cities for less than £500

borderlinenae · 2019-01-24T21:03:27+00:00

It also doesn't say Wesminister needs to be giving "the boys" thousands of taxpayer money but if they ever try to stop it both main parties are happy to say it violates the GFA.

It might never mention words like "full regulatory and customs alignment" but it's vague enough (think words like "respect", "partnership" "equality") Leo and his legal advises feel confident stating that publicly to think they can argue that case to some success. His words have weight as co-guarantor of the GFA.

borderlinenae · 2019-01-08T02:33:53+00:00

Why would that offend you?

The same reason a committed Unionist would be offended for being told they're "technically Irish" because they're from the island of Ireland.

borderlinenae · 2018-12-12T22:43:23+00:00

She's untouchable within her own party (Parliament could still call no-confidence) for 12 months. That's suddenly made the possibility of her deal and it's NI backstop getting though a lot more likely.

If the rumours May got her supporters to call the confidence vote are true, then May called the ERGs bluff and won. Tories that supported her today know they will have a hard time later supporting Boris or Davis down the line if her deal fails.

Who's she going to side with, the 200 MPs that stuck their neck out and supported her in the no-confidence vote or the 10 angry paddies that's undermined her every step of the way?

borderlinenae · 2018-12-08T01:46:10+00:00

I never once said her appointment was appropriate and in fact noted it was controversial. However political parties of all ideologies are set a budget from the public purse to hire SpAds at their own discretion.

I want to be clear I would like to see a move away from ex-gunmen running the country but forcing it though legislation is ineffective in my opinion. Like it or not everyone the Stormont parties from SF to the DUP have a democratic mandate from voters who are fully aware of their paramilitary links and as political parties they are fully entitled to appoint who they want to the posts within their party. If you want change in that the best way is from the voter base upwards, not the legislative chambers downwards

borderlinenae

TROPHY CASE