Loyalist groups to march in Dublin

murphaph

Excellent post LovelyHurling. If ALL Unionists and ALL (Republican!) Nationalists were as sensible as you, then Northern Ireland would be a grand place, at ease with itself. Sadly I feel your sort of person is becoming increasingly rare in NI and the more extreme sides have become even more polarised in recent years. I can't for the life of me imagine voting SF or DUP if I lived in NI but most people do. Reconciliation is clearly far from many people's minds.

Ifanything, NI is becoming sicker as a society. As for this march, let 'em march away I say. If farmers can come up from Kerry and block the streets for hours about some subsidy they're not getting then why not Unionists who have no vote down here but who have the southern government playing a part in the running of their country. Since the signing of the AIA, the Unionists have had every right to march here.

In this day and age, there is no point in a (politically) united Ireland. Closer economic ties would probably be desrable more for NI than RoI as the British Exchequer begins to make more and more cuts in places it can get away with it (NI predominantly).

flogen

LovelyHurling wrote:

This isnt my opinion, but Ive heard it expressed a lot especially over the Christmas break at home: The true meaning of the word nationalist, it is sometimes forgotten, applies to Unionists just as much as those who vote SF/SDLP. The majority of the people of the North have the right to be allied to the country they perceive themselves to have originated from. The population difference is marginal of course, but many unionists find it frustrating that Irish passports are issued to Northern citizens and just feel that in general, a lot of leeway is being given to the SF supporters (yes I know not all nationalists are SF) just because the IRA has paused activity... when the UUP has been demonising loyalist crimes all along. Suddenly people feel as if its as if the unionists are the bad boys and the republican crimes have been forgotten.

Given the situation in the North, I think every citizen has a right to be allied to the country they perceive themselves to have originated from, not just the majority. I don't think a passport is anything more than a shallow gesture and Unionists shouldn't be too concerned about it. Why would they be?
And I think that SF hope people will forget their (or the IRA's) crimes, and both London and Dublin are hoping people will get past them; not because they think it's all ok now but because they see it as the only route to progression and want to get it going asap. I personally don't blame the UUP for being suspicious of SF, they have every right to be. If that means they want to wait out and see how things pan out in the next year or two it will be bad for NI but in the long run good for it. Assuming they plan on sharing power at some point and under some conditions.

After SF/IRA announced they were ceasing activity, Bertie Ahern came on BBC Newsnight saying he was in favour of a united Ireland. How do you think Unionists, so used to thinking of this man as a sensible man, understanding and friendly in his dealings with the unionist community of the north, how do you think they felt?

I don't think this is the first time he's said this, he is from the self professed Republican Party and every political party in the Dail has a united Ireland as part of their agenda. Some more than others, but FF are sensible enough to know that what they'd like to see isn't going to be a reality for some time.

The Orange Order, an organisation whose actions I personally dont like, are coming here to fight back at what they regard as this new movement. Maybe fight back is a poor choice of words, they want to underline the North's indentity and her roots... just like Irishmen and women who march in Sydney and New York each Patricks Day.

Fair comparison. As long as they come to celebrate their heritage and not encourage tension, I'm by no means opposed to it.

Im not defending them, but if Im in town, I'll be watching the march. I hope most people have liberated themselves from the opinion that Ulster is an innocent entity being held at ransom by a herd of foreign men. I often think of Ulster as a child borne of a topsy turvy romance between London and Dublin. Neither can keep the north to themselves, and while it is a part of Britain, Ulster doesn't belong to Ireland. es a big boy now. Surely this was the whole crux of Good Friday.

I don't think London wants rid of NI, but who could blame any politician outside the fold to be tired of the fights. The fact is that both sides are as childish, ignorant and arrogant as each other and until they both sit down and realise the cold hard facts (NI has large minority of catholics/republicans and they should be respected as equals - NI is a part of the UK and will remain the same until everyone agrees otherwise, not when the catholics get a win by a technicality).

BigArnie

LovelyHurling wrote:

they want to underline the North's... roots

What? You mean as part of a united Ireland for thousands and thousands of years before it was occupied and eventually segregated? Fair enough

murphaph

BigArnie wrote:

What? You mean as part of a united Ireland for thousands and thousands of years before it was occupied and eventually segregated? Fair enough

Maybe you're joking but if you're not, perhaps you could give specify time periods when Ireland was politically united (apart from 1800-1922) as a single entity?

In truth, this island has since it was first inhabited, been an island of waring factions and tribes.

el tel

LovelyHurling wrote:

... when the UUP has been demonising loyalist crimes all along.

They must have been doing this by telepathy during their usual deafening silences

R0ot

Lump wrote:

WTF! They can't march in the republic... I think the Republicans should go march in London, I'm sure that'd go down well.

John

First off Lump marches do occur in the south by the Orange order, they just don't show up as much on tv or in the papers because they go down peacefully. I cant see this march going the same way though, but the reason the marches in the North (or occupied teritory) get so violent is due to the mass amount of loyalist yobs and activists as well as the republican side. Id say 90% of the people that cause the violence in these marches don't even have a clue why the marches are taking place or why there is so much hatred between both sides. I mean ffs i know a few orange men that totally agree with the movement for united ireland.

Atomic Pineapple

murphaph wrote:

Maybe you're joking but if you're not, perhaps you could give specify time periods when Ireland was politically united (apart from 1800-1922) as a single entity?

In truth, this island has since it was first inhabited, been an island of waring factions and tribes.

yes, fighting over land and superiority, not finding to split the country into different countries the island of Ireland was technically united as a full island and not split into two as it is today

as for unionists marching in dublin, ya can say what ya like about there right to or whatever but if they do then i'd expect a massive riot and lots of clashes, it wouldnt be pretty and it wouldnt help the peace process at all

LovelyHurling

draffodx wrote:

as for unionists marching in dublin, ya can say what ya like about there right to or whatever but if they do then i'd expect a massive riot and lots of clashes, it wouldnt be pretty and it wouldnt help the peace process at all

The orange order have a very stubborn attitude to the peace process. they take the view that theyre only walking down a street and if people do something violent in return then that's off their own back. They can take the literal meaning of things to the line unfortunately`, but nobody is going out to get a smack. Look, the whole reason theyre going down to Dublin is to underline that NI is full of people who have their own, non Irish heritage, not just republicans. They hope this wull cause some public debate (like here) about Ulster suddenly being bombarded with talks of a United ireland ever since an illegal army took a break from what it should never have been doing in the first place. Its also a protest by victims of the troubles against SF-IRA participation in the Dail, an institution which cant be taken seriously by all Northern citizens because of this fact.

See how you feel about Unionists marching down here? Thats how a lot of Unionists feel about "Ireland" (Irish govt involvement) going up there. The SFIRA decision to relax made the term republican and united ireland sit much easier with Southern politicians, who decided to get the republican bandwagon out of the museum, and tbh unionists feel threatened by that. Rightly so, its quite a large opposition for a small political movement to run against.

Will this help the peace process? Probably not. Will it hinder a push for a United Ireland? yes i think it will. Flogen I think youre right in what you say, just wondering whther this was Freudian?!:D .... Some time?????

Some more than others, but FF are sensible enough to know that what they'd like to see isn't going to be a reality for some time.

Just like to point out that although my loyalties would tend to lie with unionism, like all reasonable people North South and East, Im looking forward to seeing the DUP, UUP and SF and SDLP battling it out across the Assembly room in Stormont. Better economic ties would be great both for RoI and NI, but Ireland now is about as united as it should ever get

murphaph

draffodx wrote:

yes, fighting over land and superiority, not finding to split the country into different countries the island of Ireland was technically united as a full island and not split into two as it is today

Your post is complete nonsense. You readily admit the island was dominated by tribes fighting with one another for territory and then claim it was united :rolleyes: You are confusing geographical unity with political unity. Ireland was only very briefly unified politically before british rule and i was about a thousand years ago-didn't last long either. Ireland was in fact split it many more than 2 kingdoms and tribal areas for thousands of years, it's only slightly less unified politically today than it was from 1800-1922.

BigArnie

murphaph wrote:

Maybe you're joking but if you're not, perhaps you could give specify time periods when Ireland was politically united (apart from 1800-1922) as a single entity?

In truth, this island has since it was first inhabited, been an island of waring factions and tribes.

Ah right, I see. So that makes it a legitimate target for oppression and imperialism then? Gotcha. :rolleyes:

shepthedog

Back to original post, does anyone have any up to date info on this? Like when its going to happen or even if it is?

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

Maybe you're joking but if you're not, perhaps you could give specify time periods when Ireland was politically united (apart from 1800-1922) as a single entity?

Um, the island has always been a single entity until December 1920 when the British partitioned it. It may have never been an independent united single entity, but it has always been a single entity and for the record, even when Ireland was part of the UK, it was always treated differently from the rest of the UK. For example, Ireland had a Lord Lieutenant.

LovelyHurling

shepthedog wrote:

Back to original post, does anyone have any up to date info on this? Like when its going to happen or even if it is?

Yes shep, march is going ahead not sure of the date. I hear they decided to wear lilies or some sort of flower instead of sashes, which will hopefully be more acceptable to Dubs. Not all bad see, and tbh I really think this march is well intended

murphaph

BigArnie wrote:

Ah right, I see. So that makes it a legitimate target for oppression and imperialism then? Gotcha. :rolleyes:

So you can't provide a timefrime prior to british rule in Ireland when the island was united as a single political entity. A simple "no" would have sufficed but I suppose it's a case of 'never letting an opportunity to say "imperialism" go by'. By the way-who is being oppressed because of partition today?

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Um, the island has always been a single entity until December 1920 when the British partitioned it. It may have never been an independent united single entity,

Oh look semantic quibbling. Whether the Island has always been a single entity in the same Europe has been a single entity, in a geographical sense. However just because its a geographicaly connected doesn't mean its "single entity".

but it has always been a single entity and for the record, even when Ireland was part of the UK, it was always treated differently from the rest of the UK. For example, Ireland had a Lord Lieutenant.

Thats due to a politcal necessity more than anything, neither wales nor Scotland really revolted in any sense, during the same period, a Lord Lieutenant was necessary to mainatin order.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Um, the island has always been a single entity until December 1920 when the British partitioned it. It may have never been an independent united single entity, but it has always been a single entity and for the record, even when Ireland was part of the UK, it was always treated differently from the rest of the UK. For example, Ireland had a Lord Lieutenant.

You're totally confusing geographic and political entities. Ireland as an island is united today and has been since the end of the last ice age. Ireland was only ever united politically during the period when Britain ruled the entire island (aside from a brief, but not universally accepted period roughly 1000 years ago). Politically, Ireland was made up of many kings and tribes, never a united land. Why are people so uncomfortable with this? It's not at all uncommon-even 'strong' countries like Germany only united politically in the last 200 years, prior to that it was made up of all sorts of kingdoms and principalities (the last king of Bavaria was still on his throne at the turn of the last century!). By the way-every county of the whole UK (and empire) had a Lord-Lieutenant, indeed even today there are dozens of Lords-Lieutenant (Northern Ireland has eight of them I believe).

pork99

Lump wrote:

WTF! They can't march in the republic... I think the Republicans should go march in London, I'm sure that'd go down well.

John

Maybe you're not old enough to remember but that has already happened because there were regular "troops out" marches and rallies in London back in the 80s organised by Sinn Fein and/or their Labour Party or other left wing sympathisers. I was over there in the late 80s and witnessed one or two.

I cannot remember ever seeing or hearing of Orange marches in London, Liverpool maybe, up in Scotland certainly. However the Orange Order simply isn't an English thing - I'm sure there's a certain BNP element who sympathise with them but it certainly isn't mainstream.

Like most people in the Republic I couldn't give a flying fornication where the Orange Order goes as long as they behave themselves. If they are looking for trouble I'd be more worried about the "ooh ahh up the 'RA" skanger element who might rise to the bait. If they get hassle they will only want to come back - this is a case of "ignore them and they will go away".

Mr.Nice Guy

Freeelancer wrote:

Whether the Island has always been a single entity in the same Europe has been a single entity, in a geographical sense. However just because its a geographicaly connected doesn't mean its "single entity.

Grammatically, this statement is appalling. Would you mind clarifying please?

Freelancer wrote:

Thats due to a politcal necessity more than anything, neither wales nor Scotland really revolted in any sense, during the same period, a Lord Lieutenant was necessary to mainatin order.

Um, what's your point?

murphaph wrote:

You're totally confusing geographic and political entities.

I'm not.

murphaph wrote:

Ireland was only ever united politically during the period when Britain ruled the entire island (aside from a brief, but not universally accepted period roughly 1000 years ago). Politically, Ireland was made up of many kings and tribes, never a united land.

What qualifies as a 'united land' then in your eyes? Was Ireland politically united around say 1914?

murphaph wrote:

By the way-every county of the whole UK (and empire) had a Lord-Lieutenant, indeed even today there are dozens of Lords-Lieutenant (Northern Ireland has eight of them I believe).

Throughout the entire period of the union (1800-1922), the existence of a 'Government of Ireland' was recognised. The Lord Lieutenant, as representative of the sovereign, was formal head of this government.

BigArnie

murphaph wrote:

So you can't provide a timefrime prior to british rule in Ireland when the island was united as a single political entity.

Are you suggesting that the British empire had the right to invade and occupy Ireland because it wasn't a single political entity? Spurious reasoning by anyones standards. The same kind of arrogant attitude that's caused so many innocents to die over the years. Just look at Palestine. "Ah sure they're only tribesmen, we can take their land and do whatever the f**k we want"

:rolleyes:

murphaph wrote:

A simple "no" would have sufficed

Not that simple. Being from the North, I thought you'd have realised that.

murphaph wrote:

but I suppose it's a case of 'never letting an opportunity to say "imperialism" go by'.

Are you suggesting that the British don't have a history of empire building (and violent oppression for that matter)?

murphaph wrote:

By the way-who is being oppressed because of partition today?

I don't know. Would they be the same group of rabble-rousing malcontents who can't put the past behind them and move on? Or do they still think it's okay to lash rocks at schoolgirls because they're the ones feeling oppressed all of a sudden?

At the end of the day, let's agree to actually agree! Many up North don't want to be part of the United Ireland and most people down South don't want to be part of a United Ireland either. Too much baggage and hatred. Don't mind Bertie, he'll be voted out at the next election and you can keep bitching and moaning up there safe in the knowledge that your Republican neightbours are enjoying one of the strongest economies in the world.

flogen

LovelyHurling wrote:

Just like to point out that although my loyalties would tend to lie with unionism, like all reasonable people North South and East, Im looking forward to seeing the DUP, UUP and SF and SDLP battling it out across the Assembly room in Stormont. Better economic ties would be great both for RoI and NI, but Ireland now is about as united as it should ever get

I agree, more co-operation is needed. I'm not talking about sharing government responsibilities but setting up ties between each country that would be a given under any other circumstance. We share a border, and if we work together it will make things much better for everyone.
As for your feelings on a United Ireland, you're entitled to them and you should be respected for them. I personally would like to see a United Ireland but not in some ignorant Wolfe Tones-song kind of a way, but through actual agreement and co-operation. I think the best situation would be if a majority of Unionists and not just NI voters in general were in favour of unity, and as we all know, something like that isn't going to happen soon if ever at all.
I don't think some United Ireland supporters realise just how much would be involved in such a change. Even if every single person on the island agreed 100% to a united Ireland, it wouldn't just be a case of whipping the maps out and going at the border with an eraser. It would be a huge and extremely delicate process.

LovelyHurling

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

of a 'Government of Ireland' was recognised. The Lord Lieutenant, as representative of the sovereign, was formal head of this government.

Same way as there used to be a high King of Ireland, back in the day. But culturally and socially, Ulster and Kerry were very much seperated 1800 - 1922. I think thats all that people are saying, even if they did have the one governor. What was then a much more thinly veiled divison has now given rise to Ireland and Northern Ireland, a different place.

Much more importantly, Mr Nice Guy why were you not at UCD Boards beers?

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Grammatically, this statement is appalling. Would you mind clarifying please?

If you can't understand his post because it's missing an apostrophe or two I'd be worried. Despite his poor punctuation his post is perfectly intelligible to the rest of us.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

What qualifies as a 'united land' then in your eyes? Was Ireland politically united around say 1914?

Yes, insofar as it was a single political entity. No country including our own 26 county republic, can claim to be a 'united land' in the manner you're referring to as there will always be political dissent (In 2006 for example, Republican Sinn Fein totaly reject the Dail, the Gardai and all the institutions of government of my country).

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Throughout the entire period of the union (1800-1922), the existence of a 'Government of Ireland' was recognised. The Lord Lieutenant, as representative of the sovereign, was formal head of this government.

And there were Lords-lieutenant all over the Uited Kingdom (and still are). You claimed Ireland had a Lord-lieutenant and implied the rest of the UK did not, which was and is factually incorrect.

Mr.Nice Guy

LovelyHurling wrote:

Same way as there used to be a high King of Ireland, back in the day. But culturally and socially, Ulster and Kerry were very much seperated 1800 - 1922. I think thats all that people are saying, even if they did have the one governor. What was then a much more thinly veiled divison has now given rise to Ireland and Northern Ireland, a different place.

Well culturally I would have more in common with someone from Belfast than I would some rural chap down in Galway.

LovelyHurling wrote:

Much more importantly, Mr Nice Guy why were you not at UCD Boards beers?

Forgot all about it. Was it today?

senordingdong

This is turning my stomach.

LovelyHurling

flogen wrote:

As for your feelings on a United Ireland, you're entitled to them and you should be respected for them. I personally would like to see a United Ireland but not in some ignorant Wolfe Tones-song kind of a way, but through actual agreement and co-operation. I think the best situation would be if a majority of Unionists and not just NI voters in general were in favour of unity, and as we all know, something like that isn't going to happen soon if ever at all.

Yeah we both have different opinions on a united Ireland, which is fine... and getting back to the march, I think that the point you have just mentioned is why theyre going to dublin. In hope it will serve to remind people more of the (incompatible) cultural differences between NI and the south, rather than bring trouble or harm to either side.


MNG You might have more in common with a Belfastman now, but pre 1900s Ulster had a lot more Unionists and was socially and economically on a par with the rest of Britain. What you might call "the invisible south" had preserved her traditionally more Irish identity. Anyway thats off topic, and I dont understand it well enough to debate it...

murphaph

BigArnie wrote:

Are you suggesting that the British empire had the right to invade and occupy Ireland because it wasn't a single political entity? Spurious reasoning by anyones standards. The same kind of arrogant attitude that's caused so many innocents to die over the years. Just look at Palestine. "Ah sure they're only tribesmen, we can take their land and do whatever the f**k we want"

:rolleyes:

I never said any such thing. I just pointed out your error in your mistaken belief that Ireland was politically united, prior to the beginnings of British rule on the island. Primary school history teaches us otherwise! By the way, the British Empire didn't exist when the Anglo-Normans first arrived on our shores.

BigArnie wrote:

Are you suggesting that the British don't have a history of empire building (and violent oppression for that matter)?

Nope. I'm actually able to see the grey areas unlike some on here who see everything in B&W.

BigArnie wrote:

I don't know. Would they be the same group of rabble-rousing malcontents who can't put the past behind them and move on? Or do they still think it's okay to lash rocks at schoolgirls because they're the ones feeling oppressed all of a sudden?

And the members of the OO would claim exactly the same about their kids getting lashed out of it when walking up the Crumlin Road (the main road from Belfast City Centre to a protestant estate called Ligoniel. It's an A road, not some housing estate before you go on about marching through people's front gardens. We can do this all day but you implied british oppression, that's oppression by the british state or simply, state oppression. Now, Northern Ireland has one of the most highly regulated and scrutinised police forces in the world. The republic would do well to instigate a Garda ombudsman with the power of Nuala O'Loan's office-she or her staff can walk into any police station and demand any documentation without notice! In the republic the Gardai still investigate claims against the Gardai. A certain Richard Barron might know about state oppression, and that was in Donegal-RoI.

BigArnie wrote:

At the end of the day, let's agree to actually agree! Many up North don't want to be part of the United Ireland and most people down South don't want to be part of a United Ireland either.

Totally agree.

BigArnie wrote:

Too much baggage and hatred. Don't mind Bertie, he'll be voted out at the next election and you can keep bitching and moaning up there safe in the knowledge that your Republican neightbours are enjoying one of the strongest economies in the world.

<---Look at my username<---, I'm from D15! Born and bred in the Pale

senordingdong

LovelyHurling wrote:

In hope it will serve to remind people more of the (incompatible) cultural differences between NI and the south, rather than bring trouble or harm to either side.

It will do nothing of the sort. It will incite hatred and furhter division, and how pathetic they chose to do it now that Sinn Fein have laid down arms and are getting their way.

LovelyHurling wrote:

What you might call "the invisible south" had preserved her traditionally more Irish identity.

What bugs me is why these people want to turn their back on their identity to swear allegiance to a queen and kingdom that does nothing for them.

LovelyHurling

senordingdong wrote:

What bugs me is why these people want to turn their back on their identity to swear allegiance to a queen and kingdom that does nothing for them.

Nobody wants to insult anybody here, mud slinging matches are pointless and I dont question your allegience to Mary McAleese same as you shouldnt question my familiy's allegiences, be they to The Queen or to a big statue in our back garden named Bob.

Unionism doesn't involve turning your back on your identity, it is the same kind of nationalism that republicans are and can be proud of. So lets not get into an argument about it, agreed?

Atrocity

At the end of the day, it's just gonna be a few hundred old men with red faces and high waistlines marching around looking like tools. Let them come.

Dave!

LovelyHurling wrote:

a big statue in our back garden named Bob.

HEIL BOB!

senordingdong

LovelyHurling wrote:

Nobody wants to insult anybody here, mud slinging matches are pointless and I dont question your allegience to Mary McAleese same as you shouldnt question my familiy's allegiences, be they to The Queen or to a big statue in our back garden named Bob.

Unionism doesn't involve turning your back on your identity, it is the same kind of nationalism that republicans are and can be proud of.

I'm not insulting, if anything I'm asking for someone to explain it to me.
And why shouldn't I question a unionist loyalty to the the the queen or the UK, how else am I going to understand it? And as we all know, it's a lack of understanding that would casue conflict.

The unionism we know today seems to have alot to do with turning your back on your identity. The nationalism that republicans are proud of is devotion to their own country, not someone elses.

murphaph

senordingdong wrote:

The unionism we know today seems to have alot to do with turning your back on your identity. The nationalism that republicans are proud of is devotion to their own country, not someone elses.

Their country is Ireland, the Unionist's country is the United Kingdom. They both inhabit that place in their own respective minds so a Unionist is not turning his back on his identity if he associates with the United Kingdom.

LovelyHurling

senordingdong wrote:

The unionism we know today seems to have alot to do with turning your back on your identity. The nationalism that republicans are proud of is devotion to their own country, not someone elses.

But dont you see that republicans in Ulster are devoted to the culture of Ireland and thats not the country they pay their taxes to, get their health dervices from, schools, etc. On paper at least, Unionists are just maintaining loyalties to the country to whom we pay taxes, who builds our schools, pays for our health service and runs the administrative machinery of our local councils. Unionists maintain loyalties to the country we derived from, and republicans are loyal of the country that they derived from. Rightly so.

Both groups can be equally devoted to their heritage, and why not, every republican should be as proud of his history as I am of mine tbh. Parts of both pasts are grim, but then who in the world isnt ashamed of some parts of their history?

senordingdong

murphaph wrote:

Their country is Ireland, the Unionist's country is the United Kingdom.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Ireland is not in the United Kingdom.

LovelYHurling wrote:

But dont you see that republicans in Ulster are devoted to the culture of Ireland and thats not the country they pay their taxes to, get their health dervices from, schools, etc.

You have pretty much summed up my grievance.
The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland etc...

Sand

Yeah I'm pretty sure Ireland is not in the United Kingdom.

Its not, but Northern Ireland is. You might wish it wasnt, you might believe it shouldnt be. But the reality is that it is. And as for understanding Hurlings position, why hes turning his back on his identity as you put it - have you even seriously considered there might be more than a cookie cutter gaelic speaking catholic church attending wolfe tone listening version of an Irish identity? Even an Irish identity compatible with UK?

Or do you feel that Unionists are simply misguided, and will someday "wake up" and realise they were actually republicans all along? I mean youre acting completely mystified as to why they might be Unionist in the first place, so the points out large cultural differences between the North and the Republic to begin with.

Regarding this march, to begin with I assumed it was a publicity coup and theyd pull out in the face of Garda advice, to "demonstrate" how a United Ireland would treat them. But the day is getting closer and theyre still planning it seems. Who knows, theyd be very foolish not to expect the local scumbags to be out doing their bit for "Oirishness"

LovelyHurling

senordingdong wrote:

The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland etc

Great, I think we're agreed on that much tbh:D Although I suspect we mean it in different ways.

Anyway in fairness I have to say, modern NI doesnt sit comfortably with either the South of Ireland or the rest of Britain. How can it when not much below half of it its population wants something else? Going back to the theme of good friday, a united ireland and a united 'united kingdom' are two very old, obscure and redundant phrases. Hopefully thats an idea both traditional unionists and republican nationalists can agree on.

senordingdong

Sand wrote:

more than a cookie cutter gaelic speaking catholic church attending wolfe tone listening version of an Irish identity? Even an Irish identity compatible with UK?

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say here. Could you re-phrase it please?

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Grammatically, this statement is appalling. Would you mind clarifying please?

Oh bless here we go again. The suggestion of yours is that Ireland has always been united because we are geographically connected, I merely pointed out that Europe has been always been one land mass but we've always accepted national borders. So your suggestion that Ireland was always united and was split is bascially incorrect. Just because we've been one landmass doesn't mean we're one nation.

Um, what's your point?

Why on earth did you raise the Lords-lieutenant in the first place? What does that have do with anything?

Savman

Didn't bother reading 17 pages :eek: but this fantastic march idea ranks up there with the port tunnel and the spire :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

The suggestion of yours is that Ireland has always been united because we are geographically connected, I merely pointed out that Europe has been always been one land mass but we've always accepted national borders.

That wasn't my suggestion and by the way we're not geographically connected as you seem to think, we are an island! Also, Europe isn't a land mass. Ireland is part of Europe and it's an island!

Freelancer wrote:

So your suggestion that Ireland was always united and was split is bascially incorrect.

It's not.

Freelancer wrote:

Just because we've been one landmass doesn't mean we're one nation.

I never claimed that in the first place.

Freelancer wrote:

Why on earth did you raise the Lords-lieutenant in the first place? What does that have do with anything?

Because my dear man, it proves that Ireland has always been viewed by the BRITISH as a separate entity. Some are of the view that being part of the UK meant we were exactly the same as England, Scotland and Wales. That is not the case.

Sand

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say here. Could you re-phrase it please?

My point is that republican United Irelanders assume that there is no great difference between anyone who can be broadly described as Irish - from the same basic geographic area. They feel there is only one version of Irishness. Their version, which has its roots in a Wolfe Tones view of Ireland.

This is a problem when theyre saying Unionists are Irish, but they are completely mystified that Unionists arent their version of Irishness. Maybe they arent turning their back on *their* (what you mean here is *your*) identity - maybe they have a different idea of what Irishness is and its compatible with the UK?

Lets face it, inside this generation there are going to be significant numbers of first generation Irish who have no cultural attachment to a United Ireland. The definition of what it is to be Irish is far broader than United Ireland types would admit, and its only going to get broader.

Atrocity

United Ireland yes please! But by complete agreement, which is not likely in my lifetime

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

That wasn't my suggestion

Then please, calrify what you meant by this.

Um, the island has always been a single entity until December 1920 when the British partitioned it. It may have never been an independent united single entity, but it has always been a single entity

What exactly to you mean by entity? Specifically, what do you mean by "entity" what do you mean by it? Land? Nation? Culture?

and by the way we're not geographically connected as you seem to think, we are an island! Also, Europe isn't a land mass. Ireland is part of Europe and it's an island!

Thats profoundly oversimplisitic. We choose to consider ourselves part of europe, by the rational I suspect you're using, Italy could rightly claim it's borders stretch as far as Normanday, because at one point the Roman empire stretched that far.

It's not.

Wow what a brilliant and well elaborated argument. Gosh I'm convinced. Your eloquence of a response saying "nu uh" has slain me. To use your logic, Morocco owns claim to half of spain, Britain to a chunk of france, Budapest is Mongolian, Istanbul is owned by the Italians. Because at all times (in centuries more recent that the united Ireland, they've controlled these territories.

I never claimed that in the first place.

Really then pray tell what is your argument for a united Ireland, and what is your definition of a entity?

Because my dear man, it proves that Ireland has always been viewed by the BRITISH as a separate entity. Some are of the view that being part of the UK meant we were exactly the same as England, Scotland and Wales. That is not the case.

Well by that rational neither scotland Ireland or Wales had a Maharajas, then they we clearly held differently to Indian. The british empire used different tactics to control different parts of its empire, to suggest that Ireland having a Lord lieutenant, makes it special, ignores off the top of my head how the british controlled salt in Indian, knowing how salt was critical for the economy they controlled it. To get the Country by the balls.

For example it they didn't introduce the kind of anti catholic legislation because, duh, they indians werent catholic. They used a tactic in ireland like the anti catholic laws or the LL to maintain power there, and the salt laws and Maharajs to maintain power in india. The suggestion that the british having one special role in ireland, clearly proving our difference, when they adapted the kind of rules, that'd work in whichever part of their empire, makes your point moot.

You'll try and paint the above as irrelevant, however you brought into this debate the LL as prove of our difference, I'm using the above to demostrate how the english used a variety of tactics (whatever worked) to maintain power and to draw inference on the existance of the LL is proof we were seen as different is once again naive history on your part and I can only hope and pray whatever you're being taught in UCD History is not your specialist subeject.

LovelyHurling

Landlords? Normandy? Lads what the hell are you on about!!! I read that twice and Im lost... if you want to get rid of the visitors come marching day just read MNG's and that last post ,I reckon!:D

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

What exactly to you mean by entity? Specifically, what do you mean by "entity" what do you mean by it? Land? Nation? Culture?

I meant as a separate cultural and national entity. I thought that was obvious.

Freelancer wrote:

Thats profoundly oversimplisitic. We choose to consider ourselves part of europe, by the rational I suspect you're using, Italy could rightly claim it's borders stretch as far as Normanday, because at one point the Roman empire stretched that far.

Um, it IS profoundly simplistic. What continent are we from? Europe. That's not up for debate, that's a fact.

Freelancer wrote:

Wow what a brilliant and well elaborated argument. Gosh I'm convinced.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You got it wrong and I was pointing that out to you. OK?

Freelancer wrote:

Your eloquence of a response saying "nu uh" has slain me.

Sorry about that.

Freelancer wrote:

To use your logic, Morocco owns claim to half of spain, Britain to a chunk of france, Budapest is Mongolian, Istanbul is owned by the Italians. Because at all times (in centuries more recent that the united Ireland, they've controlled these territories.

Eh?

Freelancer wrote:

Well by that rational neither scotland Ireland or Wales had a Maharajas, then they we clearly held differently to Indian.

Huh? I'm sorry but this is another grammatically flawed sentence. What are you trying to say?

Freelancer wrote:

The british empire used different tactics to control different parts of its empire, to suggest that Ireland having a Lord lieutenant, makes it special, ignores off the top of my head how the british controlled salt in Indian, knowing how salt was critical for the economy they controlled it. To get the Country by the balls.

Um, India wasn't supposed to be part of its country, genius. We were, by virtue of being part of the UK. That's the point. When we were supposed to be one country, we were still treated differently.:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

For example it they didn't introduce the kind of anti catholic legislation because, duh, they indians werent catholic. They used a tactic in ireland like the anti catholic laws or the LL to maintain power there, and the salt laws and Maharajs to maintain power in india. The suggestion that the british having one special role in ireland, clearly proving our difference, when they adapted the kind of rules, that'd work in whichever part of their empire, makes your point moot.

No, the fact that Ireland was part of the UK makes this long statement a moot point...

Freelancer wrote:

You'll try and paint the above as irrelevant, however you brought into this debate the LL as prove of our difference,

And you brought in India to the debate which was a different country entirely and so makes no sense. Nice try though.

Freelancer wrote:

I can only hope and pray whatever you're being taught in UCD History is not your specialist subeject.

LOL. I can only hope and pray that English is not yours because the grammar on display in some of your posts here is nothing short of atrocious.:)

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I meant as a separate cultural and national entity. I thought that was obvious.

Not at all, I mean since the time of Queen Elizabeth we've had loyal crown subjects in the north who view themselves as british. You are over simplifying the issue.

Um, it IS profoundly simplistic. What continent are we from? Europe. That's not up for debate, that's a fact.

Feeling like I'm going to need crayons soon. Yes but who defined europe as europe, who decided portugal starts here and spain here, or france and germany? Europe is a landmass seperated into different countrys announcing ireland should be one country because it is one landmass, is what?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You got it wrong and I was pointing that out to you. OK?

Patronising, childish, and funny cause your next response is...

Sorry about that.

An admission how inane your rebuttal was.

Eh?

Hmmmm about to get out the finger puppets....Hang is your point that Ireland was once a united "entity" or not? Cause that'll redefine my answer. And if you define entity other than a bunch of people in the 6 century AD That'd help.

Huh? I'm sorry but this is another grammatically flawed sentence. What are you trying to say?

Diddums need a pie chart. Britain has used a variety of tactics to suppress n control countries. In Indian it was the Maharajas in Ireland the LL.

Um, India wasn't supposed to be part of its country, genius. We were, by virtue of being part of the UK. That's the point. When we were supposed to be one country, we were still treated differently.:rolleyes:

Okay "genius" explain to me how england ruled the whole of its empire how was ireland different than wales, or australia or Indian. We were subjects like the rest of the them.

No, the fact that Ireland was part of the UK makes this long statement a moot point...

And the uk was part of the empire......deary deary me....

And you brought in India to the debate which was a different country entirely and so makes no sense. Nice try though.

No you brought Scotland and Wales into it, In drew in a comparsion between another country fighting for independence the same time we were. Suggesting I brought it irrelevent fact when you inanely brought in the LL, is just that divine double standard we've grown to expect from you.

I was just drawing a parrallel between another country under british rule struggling for independence, you claim we were special, how are we different from Indian. The british claimed ownership of both.

LOL. I can only hope and pray that English is not yours because the grammar on display in some of your posts here is nothing short of atrocious.:)

Obnoxious rude and abusive. Good job you're not insulting me then we'd know you were "losing the argument" :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

Not at all, I mean since the time of Queen Elizabeth we've had loyal crown subjects in the north who view themselves as culturally british. You are over simplifying the issue.

We've had loyal crown subjects in the south who felt culturally British too. Moot point.

Freelancer wrote:

Yes but who defined europe as europe, who decided portugal starts here and spain here, or france and germany?

Um, society maybe? Are you seriously arguing that Ireland is not a part of Europe? Dear oh dear...

Freelancer wrote:

Patronising and childish funny cause your next response is...

LOL. More bad grammar. Now it's 'childish funny'.

Freelancer wrote:

An admission how inane your rebuttal was.

Nah it was actually sarcasm but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't get that.

Freelancer wrote:

Hmmmm about to get out the finger puppets

Do they help you understand the issues?

Freelancer wrote:

Hang is your point that Ireland was once a united "entity" or not?

Jesus wept. You actually don't understand what you're talking about, do you?

Freelancer wrote:

Britain has used a variety of tactics to suppress n control countries.

Red herring.

Freelancer wrote:

Okay "genius" explain to me how england ruled the whole of its empire how was ireland different than wales, or australia or Indian. We were subjects like the rest of the them.

FFS we were part of the UK and they weren't that's how!:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

And the uk was part of the empire

The UK was in charge of the Empire! WE WERE PART OF THE UK. Is it that hard to understand?

Freelancer wrote:

you claim we were special, how are we different from Indian.

Was India part of the UK? Well?

Freelancer wrote:

The british claimed ownership of both.

The British didn't 'claim ownership' of Ireland from 1800. From 1800, Ireland was technically meant to be part of the UK which is why Irish MPs went to Westminster.

Freelancer wrote:

Obnoxious rude and abusive. Good job you're not insulting me then we'd know you were "losing the argument" :rolleyes:

(sigh)

I think you have a petty vendetta against me over this thread judging by your earlier comments. You're clearly struggling...

Freelancer

Oh look a variety of inane responses and veiled insults, Mr Nice Guy if you want to define what you mean by Ireland as an entity instead of grappling with petty semantics knock yourself out

I submit that your argument is that national unity as an entity as occured previously therefore the natural state of this isle is united, if this is not your argument please elaborate instead of diving into a web of tangled semantics where you pick at minor points sneer at the language of others and abjectly fail to honestly and forthrightly put forward your position. You "sir" are a moral coward, and I defy you to clearly (and I don't care if you claim to have done so previously) define what you feel Ireland is an entity. With your obfuscation of your position theres little point debating further.

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

Mr Nice Guy if you want to define what you mean by Ireland as an entity instead of grappling with petty semantics knock yourself out

I have defined it.

Freelancer wrote:

I submit that your argument is that national unity as an entity as occured previously therefore the natural state of this isle is united, if this is not your argument please elaborate

My argument has been that Ireland has been a united national and cultural entity even when it has been part of the UK, which is why the British treated it as distinct when it was part of the State.

You would do well to stick to the argument at hand and stop veering away from it in order to make your snide remarks at me.

Don't get your knickers in a twist when the gaping holes of your position are made known.

Try and cut out the ad hominem attacks if you can. Cheers.

Dave!

Freelancer wrote:

Why on earth did you raise the Lords-lieutenant in the first place? What does that have do with anything?

Because it's a term he heard in a lecture and so is regurgitating and pretending he knows what he's talking about.

This is getting embaressing, let's just get back onto the march... Any further news on it?

p.s., this post is most likely grammatically flawed -- please do not disregard it for this reason alone!