Loyalist groups to march in Dublin

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

Ireland was and is a single geographic entity, not a single political one. You wouldn't say "Scandinavia was/is a nation" so no need to say "Ireand was a nation". Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

What if the British Prime Minister says it as Herbert Asquith did in 1912?:

"You can no more split Ireland into two parts than you can split England or Scotland into parts. Ireland is a nation; not two nations, but one nation. There are few cases in history, and, as a student of history in a humble way, I myself know of none, of a nationality at once so distinct, so persistent, and so assimilative as the Irish."

fly_agaric

LovelyHurling wrote:

Also there is an increased involvement of the southern government in northern affairs

Unfotunately, it cuts both ways.:( And it'll only get worse as the power of SF grows.
Anyway, I made a proposal earlier that the loyalists should go to protest in Cork. I mean Dublin already had the big Shinner day out recently so why not share the wealth? Given the government's Decapitalisation Scheme, maybe they could scatter themselves all over the country so everyone can hear their message?:D

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

I would be against unification but if a majority in both jurisdictions, independently vote in favour of it then I'd have to go along with democracy.

That's very nice of you

---

Is this march going ahead?

LovelyHurling

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is this march going ahead?

Yes its a few Saturdays away, end of Feb I believe

darkman2

LovelyHurling wrote:

Yes O Connell Street is a very sensitive area for foreign political meddling, especially of the unionist variety, I accept that.
Thats exactly why it was chosen, to demonstrate how you feel when the tables are turned. You, I and the garden wall know that there is a push on both in Westmister and Dublin for a united Ireland. Also there is an increased involvement of the southern government in northern affairs, and while the latter is inevitable, people are marching to say hold on, this is how it feels to have somebody (ho was traditionally the enemy)meddle in issues that are important to you.

In any march, loyalist or republican, yobs will be present. They will be there with the marchers and they will be there with the jeerers. That shouldnt mean that well-intentioned unionists who are trying their best not to cause offence should have to stay at home for the sake of the troublemakers.



Thats who came up with the initial idea of the march, surviving victims whose loved ones cannot be present (murdered) will be carrying names and photographs.

I'd like to reiterate the point that Nationalists marching towards Westminster under the same circumstances would be met with courtesy and respect. This is what they would deserve, and is no more than what Unionists are asking for.

Funnily enough I agree with almost everything your saying. However I think this march is antagonistic and not very productive, and having said that the plan to have a march down the main street seems a bit dubious to me and can only invite trouble.

My worry is that some marchers will intentionally start trouble to show thier counterparts up north how 'intolerant' we are when the Gardai rightly intervene. There gonna twist this in and out for all its worth. Down here we are free of this sort of behaviour, and we dont need it brought to us:)

LovelyHurling

darkman2 wrote:

Down here we are free of this sort of behaviour, and we dont need it brought to us:)

I can admit that unionists have yobs that we're ashamed of, but cant believe that this is something Dubliners are innocent of. I like Dublin, Ive been studying here for five years, actually Id say I love this f*cking city now, but Ive met scumbags that would be a good match for scumbags I grew up with.

Ignore the idiots and you might even get something out of the march. But scumbags are everywhere even in Dublin

darkman2

LovelyHurling wrote:

I can admit that unionists have yobs that we're ashamed of, but cant believe that this is something Dubliners are innocent of. I like Dublin, Ive been studying here for five years, actually Id say I love this f*cking city now, but Ive met scumbags that would be a good match for scumbags I grew up with.

Ignore the idiots and you might even get something out of the march. But scumbags are everywhere even in Dublin

I agree, of course we also have scum of the earth here, its just the incentive in this case is political and scum on both sides wont miss that excuse. Anyway I hope its peaceful.....thats all that concerns me and others.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

First of all. You're putting words in my mouth here. I never said "Ireland doesn't have the right to exist as a nation". I merely pointed out that it never existed as a unified political entity before british rule here and because of this fact it is very misleading for republicans to use the term "Irish re-unification" in that context. There never was a united political entity that encompassed the whole island before anglo-norman rule (british) began, so why should there be now? The only 'reason' republicans can give is that Ireland is a single island, ergo it should be a single country, which is a complete nosense as many islands and land masses are broken up into smaller political entities with borders betwixt and between them where the majority of people within those entities wish it to be so, as is the case with Northern Ireland.

I dont think Ireland should be a country because its an island simply. I think the Irish people have been denied self determination, thats my only motive to be honest. If a situation emerged where the majority of the Irish in NI voted to retain the union, Id see that as being an equally idal solution to this as a united Ireland. As time goes on though I can see repatition being more and more likely, which I wouldnt like from the point of view it would allow unionists to 'have their cake and eat it' (ie. refuse self determination to nationalists for as long as possible, but then in the event of a possible nationalist majority, we have to repartition the province because making people live in a country they dont want is wrong......unless theyre nationalists :rolleyes: ), and we were shafted on the Boundary Commission by Britain, so I prefer a united Ireland solution.

But once again, can a country not be a country if parts of it frequently resist or defy the rule of the character which is representative of supreme authority in the realm?

I would be against unification but if a majority in both jurisdictions, independently vote in favour of it then I'd have to go along with democracy.

Glad we agree. And Ill refer to it as 'unification' if it means so much

You are mistaken when you assert that everyone accepted the high king as the supreme ruler of the entire island of Ireland. It's an area of history that has been so abused by republicans that it is regarded as pseudohistory by many historians!

Iv read through Wiki about the High Kingship before, and Iv read lots of articles about it. I know how the High Kingship was supposed to work in theory, and that more often than not, it didnt work in practice. Im well aware of inter provincial warring that went on. But there was a title that claimed to encompass the whole island as 1 and its legitimacy was recognised by the provincial kings, otherwise why would they have bothered fighting over it?

I never claimed the brits civilised us or anything like it. I merely pointed out that Ireland was a politically divided island, not a single political entity that was to be carved up by british rule. Ireland as always been politically fragmented, just like many parts of Europe.

OK, my bad. Its just the picture painted by an earlier post about tribes warring with each other before British occupation/annexation (do you regard 'occupation' & 'annexation' as a correct words out of curiosity?) painted a 'bad' picture because our nation did many great things. And Ireland may have been politically fragmented, but not like other nations of Europe. There was never a 'High Kingship of Europe' because Europe was full of seperate sovereign states. And Iv said already I dont use the fact we were a nation to claim the north, just like I dont allow loyalist arguments of Ireland being divided make me lose support for a united Ireland.

Ireland was and is a single geographic entity, not a single political one. You wouldn't say "Scandinavia was/is a nation" so no need to say "Ireand was a nation". Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

I dont know much about Scandinavia, except Norway was a part of Sweden til around 1906 and Finland was a part of Russia. Ireland was a nation; Im going by defintion of nation on that; the common laws, language, literature, mythology, customs, history, etc. of the people; the High Kingship of IRELAND; the fact that the Vikings and Norse were repulsed from the (under an army commanded by the High King) nation and Irish cultures supremacy was maintianed, and that the remaining Norse were assimilated into Irish culture and society. Even some of the first wave of settlers were assimilated into Irish society.

LovelyHurlingIf you replaced that foreign power with the Irish government you would have more than 50 % of the North's population who felt they lived under rule of a foreign power...

There are Irish in Britain who live under British rule, and Im sure some fel like they are living under foreign rule but they still live under British rule.

LovelyHurlingAs far as I remember 3 men were responsible for the boundary, and didnt the unionist guy quit or something? Leaving only the south african judge and the irishman? That cant equate to Unionists being greedy, and anyway, you cant blame the actions of unionists back then on their grandchildren today just like I cant blame German schoolkids for starting the second world war or a modern Fitzgibbon for the Norman invasion

No the Unionist guy Fischer didnt quit. The unionists insisted on having Fermanagh and Tyrone which were both 55% nationalist, Craig declared, "I will never give in to any rearrangement of the boundary that leaves our Ulster area less than it is under the Government of Ireland Act." and threatened "bloodshed and chaos of the worst description." and resisted the boundary commission which was meant to put nationalists into the Free State, so the border remained in the wrong place.Thing that really gets me though is that after wantiong those nationalist areas, and in effect nationalist people to be part of the unionist province, they then spent the next 50 years trying to force them to leave; so I call it greed.

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Um, what exactly do you disagree with?

The entire assertion of this point

The Easter Rising was the event that led to a rethinking of the Irish national psyche. Prior to that event, it was perfectly acceptable to be BOTH Irish and British.

The entire unproven assertion of your argument that Ireland was a untied culltural entity. What evidence do you have that before the rising everyone in Ireland thought themselves as both british and irish?

Uh, the Orange Order runs throughout the island. The Grand Lodge is actually called the Grand Lodge of Ireland so you show your ignorance by bringing them up.:D

Semantic quibbling. They are Lodges in Scotland, and in England called the Grand Orange lodge of England or Scotland, but they are dedicated to the assertion that they are British citizens, therefore trashing your point that before the risng they felt themselves as Irish and British.

Since when is Catholicism a group of our national entity? You haven't a clue.:)

Are you purposely this obtuse? How can you claim a society that oppressed a major portion for that society be united in one unifying cultural idenity? Furthermore are you really suggesting that catholicism and the persuction of catholicism did not make up a huge portion of our national idenity? The fact that you feel fit to sneer at "my" knowledge while parading your ignorance is a ****ing joke.

What groups? Name them.

the ORANGE ORDER, THE ULSTER VOLUNTEER FORCE? Jesus wept, two groups dedicated to keeping themsevles as British citizens. Head in hands, are you honestly this clueless?

Could you clarify what you're trying to say here?

Just pointing out your backpeddling and shifting position.......

Only because it destroyed your flawed disasterpiece. Sorry about that.:)

This is where you reveal your ignorance and inability to debate. This is Mister Nice Guy's reponse to my point;

Me wrote:

Crap, theres not another word to describe your argument. Parts of this country have been trying to throw of the yokel of British rule for 800 years, For years after the act of union catholics were 2nd class citizens in this country. The orange order were orginally founded in the late 18th century, could in no way be seen as a celebration of irishness, and you dare to presume that the order felt both British and Irish? That Catholic Potato farmers starving and oppressed felt both British and Irish?

All you have is presumption, you've no proof.

Now firstly the above is an entirely new argument by me, and you'll notice Mr Nice Guy doesn't even try to address the points raised, just seizing on the first line and drops a "bon mot" which implies he's already destroyed my argument.

Which if you examine it, I never before raised these points and is simply intellectual dishonesty on the man's part. Cowardice, and an a refusal to admit that in the period he claims that their was a national cultural entity there was a great deal of turbulance and injustice and inquality in our "British and Irish" society.

Why not? They run on an all-Ireland basis to this day. You are clueless.:D

Again not a rebuttal, to refresh my quote to which the above is in response to was

Me wrote:

The orange order were orginally founded in the late 18th century, could in no way be seen as a celebration of irishness,

How can an organisation set up the maintain Ireland in the union, aganist the wishes of the majority of the people be seen as a example of a culture which felt British and at the same time Irish?

Again Mr Nice Guy, is like a small child who has seen adults argue and is aping them in empty gesture. He ignores the historical role the lodges played in the 19th century and early 20th century because it doesn't suit him and instead veers off on an inane tagent to deflect the issue. More intellectual dishonest.

Well they still style themselves as being 'of Ireland'. Your thoughts on that?

Again, profoundly irrelevant. Once again you see the house of cards you built. Hell one coming to this debate doesn't even understand what you're response is to. Your response contains no information, it contains no reasoning no logic no meat, it is hot air, empty retoric, all you are capable of. But I shall do you a service.

I shall include the quote you are responding to in full;

me wrote:

Crap, theres not another word to describe your argument. Parts of this country have been trying to throw of the yokel of British rule for 800 years, For years after the act of union catholics were 2nd class citizens in this country. The orange order were orginally founded in the late 18th century, could in no way be seen as a celebration of irishness, and you dare to presume that the order felt both British and Irish? That Catholic Potato farmers starving and oppressed felt both British and Irish?

All you have is presumption, you've no proof.

Once again you'll see how Mr Nice Guy, deviously cherry picked quotes to avoid the substance of the debate. Lets look as the bit he picked again;

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

Well they still style themselves as being 'of Ireland'. Your thoughts on that?

What, of course, he is ignoring is that orange order lodges were created across the world, as far aways as Canada and India. And they were refered to as the grand order lodge of Canada or Indian or whereever. He's engaging in semantic quibbling. He's saying that because they had Ireland in the title clearly they were in support of a dual cultural idenity.

Thats just their location. He's ignoring the purpose of the lodge's existance, which was a celebration of British culture. He's ignoring that because it's inconvinent for him.

Well I didn't see them organising a separatist movement to break free of Britishness prior to 1916 as they did with the Land League.

Yeah I'm guessing they were busy with the whole starving to death, emanicaption, immirgration thing, took up a few decades free time. And the seperatist movement did exist. For someone who's so keen to tell me I need to read more on the subject you forget that a huge chunk of the Home Rule movement saw Home Rule as the first step towards full seperation. Or maybe you're just choosing to ignore it because it eats into your single cultural entity argument.

That's great and all but what has this got to do with the piece I wrote which you quoted?

Again empty retoric, Here's his original piece;

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

YOU ARE THE ONE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE. Because it was 1916 which forced people to make a choice between Britishness and Irishness because the two could no longer co-exist as they once did. If unionists had viewed themselves as British and not Irish, why didn't they demand to have the island partitioned sooner? Because they DID regard themselves as Irish up until moments like 1916 changed what Irishness meant.

and my response

Me wrote:

Utter complete and total tosh, you're now trying to tell me you understand the psyche of the unionists born 150 years ago? The reasons the unionists didn't vote for seperation is because they felt the whole island belonged to britain, and in fact fought in the 1st world war to try and kibosh the whole home rule and have the situation remain the same. They fought to keep Ireland in the union, they didn't want their own state, they were British and wanted to keep Ireland British. Thats the historical accepted position of Unionism. You're taken an enormous leap of inane logic there.

Again he makes this surprious claim that of course the unionists were Irish and English because otherswise "why didn't they demand to have the island partitioned sooner?" Leaving aside the inanity that a group of unionists, proud subjects of the british empire, would in 1914 be in favour of carving up of part of the empire. I then give a list of reasons that anyone who has sat junior cert history could tell you was the reasoning behind the unionists not voting for seperation, and how they felt themselves as British not Irish.

His response;

That's great and all but what has this got to do with the piece I wrote which you quoted?

Intellectual cowardice on the part of Mr Nice Guy.

PT2

Freelancer

LOL. You are the one who thinks the Orange Order is an anti-Irish organisation. It's actually anti-Catholic. Big difference.

Again junior cert history. While the lodges were founded in the the 18th century as an anti catholic organisation it was in 1905 that they re formed as an anti home rule organisation. The suggestion of Lord Randolph Churchill by the way.

Again the above is a rebuttal to my pointing out the Mr Nice Guy claims to have insight into the mindset of everyone from William Craig to a Fishmonger in Dublin, without a shred of evidence. He claims that Irishmen who attacked the 1916's were proud British subjects angry at the rebels, and Orange Lodge Members felt themselves as Irish. He offers nothing to support this.

Unsupported claim? You'll find it in every history book around the country mate. Trust me. Do tell us though your perspective on things. I can't wait to hear this.:)

And this is where you wander into the realm of beneath contempt. If its in every history book it the land;

BLOODY WELL SHOW ME ONE

Because until then you are a liar and joke. Find me a good reputable history book that says that this island was a unified cultural entity whose citizens felt themselves British and Irish until the 1916 rising where they were forced to choose. While I'm certain you will find a book that suggests that the rising forced a radical shift in Irish thinking, and nationlism, I sincerely doubt you'll find one about the single cultural idenity.

That's funny because I recall many IRB members like Michael Davitt supporting the idea of IRB members supporting the Home Rule movement and the Fenians gave support to Charles Stewart Parnell. Of course I'm probably 'making that up' too.:rolleyes:

See a person would wonder why a few paragraphs ago you were wondering how come the seperatists didn't organise themselves as the land league, and now you're patronisng me about the IRB.

See this is you trying to have your cake and eat it. A minute ago, you were claiming that there wasn't an organised seperatist movement as prove of our nation unitied as a cultural entity and our feelings as being both "Irish and British", now you're lecturing me on the organisation that in this time period was trying to remove Ireland from the Empire.

They planned revolution when they saw that the unionists, through threatening force via the UVF, were getting results.

Are you trying to suggest that groups like the IRB weren't fermenting revolution? And again thats supposition on your part, parts of the group weren't happy with just home rule, and wanted it to go further. Furthermore you're showing your over simplification again, most of the UVF were busy in the Somme in 1916, they weren't in Ireland in any way shape or form, to threaten force, and home rule had technically passed. Once again you're painting a vastly oversimplied painting of the situation.

Oh and I suppose the two armed groups ready to go to civil war over our status in the union (before 1916) is proof that of our existance as a single national and cultural entity? What next you're going to suggest that the sectarian riots in Belfast that greeted the various home rule bills, was robust, but good spirited debate?

Yeah all nationalists supported violence? O'Connell, Redmond, they were both strong supporters of violent methods?:rolleyes: Dear oh dear. Such ignorance...

Again, this is a complete tangent. This is in reponse to this by me

Me wrote:

Thats why groups like the invincibles murdered one of aides of your LL in 1882, in the cause of Irish nationalism, it was through violence that they only saw they could achieve their aims. But hey I'm sure they felt themselves as British and Irish too

which in return was a response to this

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

Charming language. My my, you are struggling. You want statistics? I'll go one better. There was no political party in Ireland which demanded complete separation from the UK prior to 1916. Why? The goal was Home Rule within the UK.

which I responsed to with this

Me wrote:

And what does that have to do with the price of pie? Theres a variety of reasons for that, not least of which is that complete seperation was not seen as possible by politcal means, which is why groups like Pearse set about in secret planning for revolution. Demanding complete seperation would have been akin to, or actually treason, so of course no politcal party would suggest it, it was in the realms of revolutionary talk. Thats why groups like the invincibles murdered one of aides of your LL in 1882, in the cause of Irish nationalism, it was through violence that they only saw they could achieve their aims. But hey I'm sure they felt themselves as British and Irish too

Lets be clear on this Mr Nice Guys assertion was that before 1916, everyone wanted home rule within Britain, ergo british and irish. I come back and point out that there were groups fighting to seperation, and that wanting more than home rule was borderline sedious.

He comes back with some meandering tangent about republican violence? How is this relivant, how does this matter? How does this help defend his original point that

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

There was no political party in Ireland which demanded complete separation from the UK prior to 1916. Why? The goal was Home Rule within the UK.

He's seriously suggesting that prior ti 1916 no one in Ireland wanted to be a seperate entity from the UK, and when challenged on this starts on spurious tangent about republican violence, and paficists.

If this is the logic and level of debate capable from a third level student, I worry.

That's a lie but I'm not surprised at the lengths you would stoop to. YOU claimed that people classed themselves as British OR Irish and the survey I revealed showed that it was more complex than that. See here Now we all know you're a liar as well as ignorant!

No you claimed that people in NI felt themselves as Irish, or NI, and then presented a statistic that 47% saw themselves as british. Again. It's neither here nor there. Just further evidence that you are incapable of honest debate.

I thought you would have been well aware of this speech since it came from a rare visit to Ireland by a British politician. It was in 1912 as I said, in the run-up to the proposed Home Rule bill and Asquith was giving his suport to the idea that Ireland was ONE ENTITY.

Would you care to give the full text of speech, and the context, and where you found it.

Gee, I wonder why you would play dumb on a point that SHATTERS your argument, seeing as you disputed my claims that the British treated Ireland as a distinct cultural and national unit?!

Keep digging though. It's hilarious!

I think the fact is "A" british politican. Not the Irish people. Are you telling me, that we are defined by how we are considered by Leader of another?

Translation: You want me to back up my claims while you will make no effort whatsoever to back up YOURS and yet you had the audacity earlier to claim that I was making stuff up as I went along!

No. You've made a claim. "Most Irish People saw themselves as British and Irish". Thats a statement of fact. In a debate the onus is on you to support statements of facts. Again, this is pretty basic stuff. And seeing as your entire argument lives and dies on that "fact" and you've gone three or four pages without providing evidence to support it (aside from waving me in the general direction of Eason's history section, always the last act of a desperate argument "I read it in a book, look it up if you don't believe me", it is somewhat understandable that you resort to underhanded and intellectually dishonest tactics to try and keep your position alive. Understandable, but disappointing)

---

PT 3 below

LovelyHurling

and we were shafted on the Boundary Commission by Britain

I think the south had a fair part to play in shafting themselves in that regard... Eoin McNeill?
Im from Tyrone, and I also belong to a protestant unionist family. Agreed, Tyrone has a larger Nationalist population than other places in the north. However, just as I feel sorry for the (approximately 3:D ) nationalists living in places like ballymena and ballyclare, and think they should have the right to express their own unique culture and heritage, equally so I dont think the whole county of Tyrone should necessarily go south just if the majority are Catholic.

If thats the case, are you saying the North as a whole entity has no right to proclaim its nationalist identity just because most overall residents are protestant? It's not a numbers game.

so I prefer a united Ireland solution.

Thats fine, again you're entitled to that opinion.

The whole spirit of Good Friday was to bring about a new vision of northern Ireland, not a Protestant one nor a Catholic one, but one where both backgrounds are recognized. A United Ireland and a Unified United Kingdom are words that (in my opinion) should be deleted from the language because they only cause confusion and frustration to both sides.
Just as no self respecting unionist can expect to ignore the identity of his country men (republicans) neither can republicans ignore the identity and history of unionists. The terms I referred to are old, black-and-white, redundant views of Northern Ireland.

A United Ireland will not happen. The united Kingdom as it stood in the 1970s will never be back. Either scenario would relight the fires of the troubles that all Northerners have seen far too much of already. nationalists and unionists working together in the north will be the only groups of people unifying Northern Ireland

just like I dont allow loyalist arguments of Ireland being divided make me lose support for a united Ireland.

Again, a unionist and I have never ever heard this argument until it was brought up by Mr Nice Guy and Murphaph(sp?) on boards. It's an extremely weak argument tbh no matter what side you look at it from

There are Irish in Britain who live under British rule, and Im sure some fel like they are living under foreign rule but they still live under British rule.

Im not sure if you are talking about northern republicans here?
In that statement I was replying to somebody who said it was unfair to deprive republicans of their self determination. My argument is, what about the majority of Northerners, the Unionists, doesn't that group have rights to self determination too?

So both groups have rights to self determination, thats the only point I was making

"I will never give in to any rearrangement of the boundary that leaves our Ulster area less than it is under the Government of Ireland Act." and threatened "bloodshed and chaos of the worst description." and resisted the boundary commission which was meant to put nationalists into the Free State, so the border remained in the wrong place.Thing that really gets me though is that after wantiong those nationalist areas, and in effect nationalist people to be part of the unionist province, they then spent the next 50 years trying to force them to leave; so I call it greed.

I cannot speak for any dead Unionist. Thats like asking a Northerner to answer for the Ulster plantation or Enniskillen or Bloody Sunday. All I know is my family live in Tyrone, theyre happy there, I dont know anyone who isnt happy there, from any religion. Thats not to say there is no need to address the frustration of Tyrone republicans with regard to their national identity, but the worst solution possible, for anyone right now, would be to interfere with the border seperating Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland.

47 years of constant effort and frustration and patches of peace ends begins to close hopefully, and what happens? The Taoiseach on BBC1 throwing the word United Ireland about, Paisley and his men on the other side hurling back insults at republicans... why wreck it when its beginning to work? Another few years and we'll more than likely have power sharing, why cant people, yes including Southerners, just leave the North alone for now and let Northerners work it out with their own devices now that its come this far?

That is also what the march is about... interferance into something that, Catholic or Protestant, is now not a British nor Irish affair, but a Northern one

Freelancer

LOL. You illustrate how much you're struggling.:)

I'm struggling because you don't seem to understand how a debate works. I'm struggling because you don't seem to grasp how if you make an argument, and I challenge it, attacking my point on some non sequiter tangent doesn't make your argument any more credible.

I'm struggling because I just don't think you understand that you cannot demand other posters hold themselves to a higher standard of behaviour, yet you feel under obligation to hold yourself to those standards. You're happy to in engage in ad homien attacks, snide implied insults, etc...... But you'll demand other posters stop similar behaviour.

I'm struggling because most of your arguments consists of empty rebuttals "You're really stuggling" "educate yourself" and contain not a shred of facts or opinion or an honest solid argument, to debate. I suspect you "win" debates through stamina rather than logic, wearying a smarter, better oponents, not through logic and reasoning, but because they realise that there is little point continuing with such a vapid empty opponent.

I see you keep yourself in the shallow end of the pool and rarly tread in areas like politics or humanities, where your tedious little games would recieve short shrift. Keep swiiming, better be a pike among the AH trouts, eh?

You can't wrap your head around the idea that things aren't black and white when in reality, they were decidedly grey.

I'm sorry let me have this clear. You are arguing that the Irish were a single unified cultural and nationaly entity, who felt themselves as Both British and Irish, until one event in 1916 forced them to choose sides.

And I'm the one thinking things are black and white?

Am I the one who has ignored the mass inequality that the majority of the population faced, while another group of the population were protected by the state? Am I the one ignoring the massive amounts of sectarian and politcal violence that occured between factions of this "one cultural entity" over decades?

No. You are.

I'm saying that just because you say (oh and you've a quote from a British PM) that the Irish felt themselves as "British and Irish", and you say we were a single culturally and national entity (and lets because here sonny, all you have is your opinion, you've not provided a shred of evidence) doesn't mean we were.

I'm saying that the people of Ireland in this period felt themselves British and Irish in degrees, and I'm pretty sure a protestant ship builder in belfast felt British, while a catholic farmer in Mayo felt Irish and oppressed by the British,

Any bollockolgy and inane semantics isn't going to present the argument, that until Pearse read a proclaimation on the steps of the GPO, and and Helga opened fire, they felt as both British and Irish equally.

You want to sum up Irish history in neat little packages to make your views easier to digest.

Again. Hey Bartender, get Mr Nice Guy a drink and make it a double standard. You're the one claiming that were as a nation as one until one event occured, and I'm the one who's oversimplifying things?

Since I don't personally want to try the moderator's patience with any more gigantic posts, I would ask you to sum up what your basic point is. You seem to take issue with what I say without actually pointing out what your point is or if you even have one!

You don't get to dictate how I speak sonny.

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer: 10/10 for the duration of your post, 10/10 for insults and whining, 10/10 for dishonesty, 5/10 for effort but 0/10 for comprehension and understanding. (sigh)

Freelancer wrote:

What evidence do you have that before the rising everyone in Ireland thought themselves as both british and irish?

That there were no calls for complete separation from the UK and the fact that it took until late in the 19th century for a serious and organised domestic party (the Home Rulers) to emerge. Prior to that people simply voted Liberal or Conservative. The Repeal Association for example did not seek separation nor did the Home Rulers..

Freelancer wrote:

Semantic quibbling. They are Lodges in Scotland, and in England called the Grand Orange lodge of England or Scotland, but they are dedicated to the assertion that they are British citizens, therefore trashing your point that before the risng they felt themselves as Irish and British.

Wrong. Show proof that they are dedicated to the assertion that they are British citizens. There is none. Such laughable ignorance on your part.:)

Freelancer wrote:

How can you claim a society that oppressed a major portion for that society be united in one unifying cultural idenity?

Religion doesn't necessarily equal culture. Many of the famous Irish nationalists were Protestant. It's not a case of Catholic = Green, Protestant = Orange. Not everything fits into neat packages like I told you. Understand?:)

Freelancer wrote:

the ORANGE ORDER, THE ULSTER VOLUNTEER FORCE? Jesus wept, two groups dedicated to keeping themsevles as British citizens. Head in hands, are you honestly this clueless?

How foolish your views are! The Orange Order WERE NOT DEDICATED TO KEEPING THEMSELVES BRITISH. They were, and currently are, an all-Ireland and global organisation! As for the UVF, here's how the Ulster Covenant began:

BEING CONVINCED in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland...

Notice the mention of Ireland? Get a clue. You're an embarrassment. You and your big letters, LOL.:)

Freelancer wrote:

How can an organisation set up the maintain Ireland in the union, aganist the wishes of the majority of the people be seen as a example of a culture which felt British and at the same time Irish?

How is it NOT British and Irish? The Unionist leaders Carson and Craig felt Irish. They might not have subscribed to the Irishness of others, but that doesn't make their Irishness any less relevant.:)

Freelancer wrote:

He's saying that because they had Ireland in the title clearly they were in support of a dual cultural idenity.

Presumably you will tell all of us why they bothered to have 'of Ireland' in the title and why they bother to have Irish lodges, yes? Go right ahead.

Freelancer wrote:

Thats just their location. He's ignoring the purpose of the lodge's existance, which was a celebration of British culture. He's ignoring that because it's inconvinent for him.

I ignore it as it's a pile of ignorant, inaccurate bullsh*t.

Freelancer wrote:

For someone who's so keen to tell me I need to read more on the subject you forget that a huge chunk of the Home Rule movement saw Home Rule as the first step towards full seperation.

No I didn't I specifically mentioned in my last post how IRB men like Michael Davitt were willing to use politics to advance their aims when you inaccurately said that poltiics couldn't meet the aims of those who sought separation. You are so dishonest.

Freelancer wrote:

Leaving aside the inanity that a group of unionists, proud subjects of the british empire, would in 1914 be in favour of carving up of part of the empire.

So let me get this straight, you argued above that there WAS a desire for separation and you argue there WAS a desire from unionists for Britishness and NOT Irishness...and yet you can't explain why there was no desire for partition? Surely going by YOUR logic, with one side wanting out of the UK and the other wanting 'Irishness' out, partition should have came about much sooner? You unwittingly prove how illogical your own points are!:)

Freelancer wrote:

Again junior cert history. While the lodges were founded in the the 18th century as an anti catholic organisation it was in 1905 that they re formed as an anti home rule organisation. The suggestion of Lord Randolph Churchill by the way.

LOL you accuse me of Junior Cert History when you equate being anti-Home Rule as being anti-Irish! LOL you're priceless! Go back to school pal.:D

Freelancer wrote:

you are a liar and joke.

More insults from the big baby.:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

See a person would wonder why a few paragraphs ago you were wondering how come the seperatists didn't organise themselves as the land league, and now you're patronisng me about the IRB.

Your refusal to answer my point is quite telling...

Freelancer wrote:

A minute ago, you were claiming that there wasn't an organised seperatist movement as prove of our nation unitied as a cultural entity and our feelings as being both "Irish and British", now you're lecturing me on the organisation that in this time period was trying to remove Ireland from the Empire.

I said there wasn't an organised separatist movement CALLING FOR separation. The IRB were a secret group. Poor comprehension on your part.

Freelancer wrote:

Oh and I suppose the two armed groups ready to go to civil war over our status in the union (before 1916) is proof that of our existance as a single national and cultural entity?

It's proof of a different politcal opinion. There was civil war in the Irish Free State but that doesn't mean we were different nationally or culturally, does it? 'Civil war' means combat within your OWN COUNTRY. I guess that slipped your mind. LOL.

Freelancer wrote:

Mr Nice Guys assertion was that before 1916, everyone wanted home rule within Britain, ergo british and irish.

That's a lie. Where did I say that? Show me a quote. You're either ignorant or dishonest.

Freelancer wrote:

He's seriously suggesting that prior ti 1916 no one in Ireland wanted to be a seperate entity from the UK,

No I'm not. More lies.

Freelancer wrote:

No you claimed that people in NI felt themselves as Irish, or NI,

Another lie.

Freelancer wrote:

It's neither here nor there.

Don't try and make out your dishonesty is fine and dandy.

Freelancer wrote:

Would you care to give the full text of speech, and the context, and where you found it.

I found it in a book by Coakley and Gallagher called Politics in the Republic of Ireland. If you use Google you'll find more info. Here's one site where the speech is listed under 'Establishment Pressure':

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap4.htm

Although subjected to considerable pressure the Liberals appeared to stand firm. The partition of Ireland was being raised in some quarters and Asquith held views strongly opposed to this. He said: ‘You can no more split Ireland into two parts than you can split England or Scotland into parts. Ireland is a nation; not two nations, but one nation. There are few cases in history, and, as a student of history in a humble way, I myself know of none, of a nationality at once so distinct, so persistent, and so assimilative as the Irish.’ [5]

I'm surprised you were unaware of such an important speech since you think you are oh so very clever!

Freelancer wrote:

I think the fact is "A" british politican.

Not any old British politican - the Prime Minister.

Freelancer wrote:

Are you telling me, that we are defined by how we are considered by Leader of another?

I'm telling you his views would have reflected the views of the majority of the Irish people. Why do you think he said it on a speech to DUBLIN? Use your loaf.:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

always the last act of a desperate argument "I read it in a book, look it up if you don't believe me",

Maybe you should examine why lots of people are apparently telling you to read more books?

Freelancer wrote:

I'm struggling because...I'm struggling because

While I appreciate the fact that you have admitted you are struggling, the fact that you make poor excuses for it is disappointing....

Freelancer wrote:

I'm struggling because I just don't think you understand that you cannot demand other posters hold themselves to a higher standard of behaviour,

I have considerable experience debating these issues and so I hold people to high standards. It comes from debating with learned individuals. When you tell me basic fundamental untruths such as the OO were anti-Irish, the UVF didn't care about being Irish back in 1912, when you are unaware of things like Asquith's 'one nation' speech, and when you like to package the IRB as an organisation that was CALLING FOR separation - when they were a SECRET organisation - yes all this does disappoint me as I like people to know what they're talking about!:)

Mr.Nice Guy

Part 2...

Freelancer wrote:

You're happy to in engage in ad homien attacks, snide implied insults, etc...... But you'll demand other posters stop similar behaviour.

I have not engaged in snide insults. You have. You have made comments about my third level education for example. I'm not blaming you really, I'm aware it's what desperate people do when they are being intellectually outfought. Posting in big bold letters is another thing...

Freelancer wrote:

I suspect you "win" debates through stamina rather than logic, wearying a smarter, better oponents, not through logic and reasoning, but because they realise that there is little point continuing with such a vapid empty opponent.

Stamina? When you're the guy who broke an argument into three parts and when I'm the guy who asked you to summarise your views? LOL. I don't set out to 'win arguments' as you might, I like to challenge and be challenged but all you're offering me is insults and inaccuracies. It's a shame.

Freelancer wrote:

I see you keep yourself in the shallow end of the pool and rarly tread in areas like politics or humanities,

Your interest in my activities is worrying and unsettling.

Freelancer wrote:

Keep swiiming, better be a pike among the AH trouts, eh?

I don't use Boards as a political outlet. I do that on a number of other sites which are geared towards that. I would point out that you entered this thread as I did and also that I have debated on the poltiics forum on irregular occasions. How many posts have you anyway to question my activity? Another account have you maybe?;)

Freelancer wrote:

I'm saying that just because you say (oh and you've a quote from a British PM)

Whereas you have quoted...um...and your source was...uh...oh that's right you don't back up your arguments do you! LOL.:D

Freeancer wrote:

(and lets because here sonny,

'Sonny'? Why are you talking to me like there's a big age gap between us?

Freelancer wrote:

all you have is your opinion, you've not provided a shred of evidence) doesn't mean we were.

I gave you a quote from Asquith, British PM, when you dismissed my claim that others felt this way and now you have simply dismissed Asquith, while all the while you yourself have offered up nothing, zilch, nada as proof of your view that we were not united in any cultural and national sense.

Freelancer wrote:

I'm saying that the people of Ireland in this period felt themselves British and Irish in degrees,

So your position has shifted has it? Because earlier you claimed that no one felt British and Irish when I suggested they could. You ANGRILY dismissed this notion yet you now accept people felt like this 'in degrees'. You flip-flop worse than John Kerry!

Freelancer wrote:

Any bollockolgy

LOL. And you're the guy who slammed my education, yes?:)

Freelancer wrote:

and inane semantics isn't going to present the argument, that until Pearse read a proclaimation on the steps of the GPO, and and Helga opened fire, they felt as both British and Irish equally.

There were no steps to the GPO. Something my education, which you criticise, taught me and another thing that you seem unaware of.

Freelancer wrote:

Again. Hey Bartender, get Mr Nice Guy a drink and make it a double standard.

Funny stuff. You should try the humour forum. It might be more suited to you.

Freelancer wrote:

You're the one claiming that were as a nation as one until one event occured,

The Rising IS what triggered the national conflict here! Geez...

Freelancer wrote:

You don't get to dictate how I speak sonny.

Hey listen 'pops', I get to give my opinion and in my view you are perhaps the most ignorant, dishonest, narrow-minded individual I have come across yet on Boards.

While some of your views are mildly entertaining in a 'look at what he actually thinks' kind of way, mostly your views are naive in the extreme.

Hey, at least I'm doing my bit to help you out though.;)

murphaph

Flex, would it be fair to say we're now going round in circles?

I don't think I'm about to convince you of my argument and vice-versa. I respect your views and the most important thing is something upon which we agree, ie, that the democratic will of the majority of the populations of both sides of the border should be respected is not in doubt.

As for whether or not the Anglo-Normans "annexed" or "occupied", well they were invited originally so they didn't exactly invade. The Anglo-Normans did settle and interbreed with native irish and so would be like the Norsemen in that regard (anybody with a 'Fitz' prefx in their name is likely decended from the Anglo-Normans). In truth, it can't be easily defined and to be honest it's not important-you might well be descended from the Anglo-Normans yourself and were it not for their coming here you might not exist.

@LovelyHurling; I wasn't trying to argue that Ireland shouldn't be united because it wasn't before the Anglo-Norman's arrival, merely that because Ireland was divided politically at that time, the High Kingship cannot be used today an a good reason for a united Ireland by republicans-they'll have to persuade me with modern day arguments that a UI is in my best interests.

I hope this parade passes off peacefully and people respect those carrying pictures of their dead loved ones.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

Flex, would it be fair to say we're now going round in circles?

I don't think I'm about to convince you of my argument and vice-versa. I respect your views and the most important thing is something upon which we agree, ie, that the democratic will of the majority of the populations of both sides of the border should be respected is not in doubt.

As for whether or not the Anglo-Normans "annexed" or "occupied", well they were invited originally so they didn't exactly invade. The Anglo-Normans did settle and interbreed with native irish and so would be like the Norsemen in that regard (anybody with a 'Fitz' prefx in their name is likely decended from the Anglo-Normans). In truth, it can't be easily defined and to be honest it's not important-you might well be descended from the Anglo-Normans yourself and were it not for their coming here you might not exist.

OK, thanks for the good discussion

BigArnie

LovelyHurling wrote:

Thats exactly why it was chosen, to demonstrate how you feel when the tables are turned. You, I and the garden wall know that there is a push on both in Westmister and Dublin for a united Ireland. Also there is an increased involvement of the southern government in northern affairs, and while the latter is inevitable, people are marching to say hold on, this is how it feels to have somebody (ho was traditionally the enemy)meddle in issues that are important to you.

Hmmm. According to the Love Ulster parade organiser (Frazer?), the march is a protest by families and supporters of victims of Nationalist violence. But no - it's now about Dublin and London meddling in Northern Irish politics. Odd. I wish these guys would make their mind up as to why exactly it is that they're marching. :rolleyes:

As far as I'm concerned, this widespread Loyalist attitude is simply a pathetic relic of a bygone era perpetuated by childish malcontents. And their behaviour in this march should be a benchmark as to whether they be welcome back again.

LovelyHurling

BigArnie wrote:

Hmmm. According to the Love Ulster parade organiser (Frazer?), the march is a protest by families and supporters of victims of Nationalist violence. But no - it's now about Dublin and London meddling in Northern Irish politics. Odd. I wish these guys would make their mind up as to why exactly it is that they're marching. :rolleyes:
.

If you read the earlier posts a few pages ago, or listened to Mr Fraser properly you'd have heard that the victims marching are marching for more than one reason. Most people know what those reasons are because they've been repeated here so many times so if you want to scroll back through the posts they're all there.

As far as I'm concerned, this widespread Loyalist attitude is simply a pathetic relic of a bygone era perpetuated by childish malcontents

You can't just attempt to knock the entire loyalist movement... the loyalist movement (nationalism) is a mirror image of the republican movement (nationalism), I wouldn't because I don't believe it, but I could argue that the widespread Nationalist attitude is simply a pathetic relic of a bygone era perpetuated by childish malcontents. Like I said I dont believe that, and I think that kind of thinking towards unionists or republicans is out of place in the modern Northern Ireland

gurramok

BigArnie wrote:

Hmmm. According to the Love Ulster parade organiser (Frazer?), the march is a protest by families and supporters of victims of Nationalist violence. But no - it's now about Dublin and London meddling in Northern Irish politics. Odd. I wish these guys would make their mind up as to why exactly it is that they're marching. :rolleyes:

As far as I'm concerned, this widespread Loyalist attitude is simply a pathetic relic of a bygone era perpetuated by childish malcontents. And their behaviour in this march should be a benchmark as to whether they be welcome back again.

And in todays newspaper, it says that Willie Frazier was denied a gun licence by the PSNI due to his connections to terrorists.

Hardly a victim, more like a supporter of mass murder?

BigArnie

LovelyHurling wrote:

but I could argue that the widespread Nationalist attitude is simply a pathetic relic of a bygone era perpetuated by childish malcontents

And you'd be right for the most part. There's a difference between marching peacefully to air grievences and marching 'peacefully' to incite trouble and agitate people. Unfortunately, Loyalist marchers are far too commonly known to do the latter. Unionism is no more a political movement than, sorry to say it, a bunch of bigots airing their newfound grienvences because they don't have things their own way so much anymore. It's not nice being on the losing side, eh?

Good article by Tom McGurk in the Sunday Business Post today. Pretty much sums up what most people think here... we don't REALLY care. We actually feel sorry for Loyalists and how increasingly pathetic and impotent they've become.

LovelyHurling

BigArnie wrote:

And you'd be right for the most part. There's a difference between marching peacefully to air grievences and marching 'peacefully' to incite trouble and agitate people. Unfortunately, Loyalist marchers are far too commonly known to do the latter.

Have you read the other posts in this thread at all? BigArnie every argument you get into its always the same unbending repetition of previous points, sorry I just think this point about victims has been argued and defended enough already, make up your own mind, thats fine

Unionism is no more a political movement than, sorry to say it, a bunch of bigots airing their newfound grienvences because they don't have things their own way so much anymore. It's not nice being on the losing side, eh?

Again, Im not going to argue with your opinion, and I can only argue for myself when I say I dont think either side can have things its own way any more, that day is long gone and there will be no end 'winner'.

we don't REALLY care. We actually feel sorry for Loyalists and how increasingly pathetic and impotent they've become.

Who do you feel like you're speaking for when you say 'we'? A little respect for others is never too much to ask for.

BigArnie

LovelyHurling wrote:

Have you read the other posts in this thread at all? BigArnie every argument you get into its always the same unbending repetition of previous points, sorry I just think this point about victims has been argued and defended enough already, make up your own mind, thats fine

It's something I felt I would point out and have done so. I don't need to answer to you because you feel a point has been 'done to death' - it's a salient point. I make it again. Accept it.

LovelyHurling wrote:

Again, Im not going to argue with your opinion, and I can only argue for myself when I say I dont think either side can have things its own way any more, that day is long gone and there will be no end 'winner'.

I agree with you. Compromise is the best way forward. *tumbleweed drifts past*

LovelyHurling wrote:

Who do you feel like you're speaking for when you say 'we'? A little respect for others is never too much to ask for.

Respect is earned. To be honest, neither community in the North of Ireland have done much to earn my respect of recent years.

Loyalists... the new Nationalists? :eek:

LovelyHurling

BigArnie wrote:

it's a salient point. I make it again. Accept it.

I never denied you made the point, just saying we disagree on it.

Respect is earned. To be honest, neither community in the North of Ireland have done much to earn my respect of recent years.

Im talking about having enough respect not to lower the argument into petty name calling. I dont respect the republican movement enough to go march alongside Jerry Adams, but I have enough respect for it not to resort to that kind of childishness

LordSutch

Flex wrote:

And if you are unaware, we dont 'own' any of that British flag. "As for the Irish flag being flown 'Fair enough' after all, they do own one third of it", so whats the problem?

Its really not worth going head to head with you Flex because although we are talking about the same "Troubles" we are both arguing from our own entrenched perspectives! so you carry on with your opinion
and I shall carry on with mine but as for the make-up of the Union Flag "Think again"!

BigArnie

LovelyHurling wrote:

Im talking about having enough respect not to lower the argument into petty name calling.

I was simply calling a spade a spade. The people of Northern Ireland have done enough damage to their own reputations in recent years. Childish names for childish people.

Chong

How is this argument still in after hours surely this suits Humanities better. Plus its good to see MYCROFT or should I say Freelancer is in fine form on this thread.

darkman2

I say let them have their march as long as its peaceful. I agree with Tom McGurk, I certainly dont care. I also agree with other sentiments that the 'troubles' now are extremley childish and embarrasing. TBH does any right minded person here want anthing to do with any of them? Of course not. I know 10 year olds with more common sense.

LovelyHurling

WDK wrote:

How is this argument still in after hours surely this suits Humanities better.

Answer:

Unionism is no more a political movement than, sorry to say it, a bunch of bigots airing their newfound grienvences because they don't have things their own way so much anymore. It's not nice being on the losing side, eh?

OR, throw glass bottles at them!

etc...

BigArnie

LovelyHurling wrote:

Answer:

etc...

The question still begs - what gives them the right to come down here and march at the Rep of Ireland taxpayers expense? It's been asked dozens on times on this thread and nobody has been able to answer it with anything better than "Ah sure it won't cost anything relatively, it's just another march"

1) People in the Rep Ireland (except for Dublin scumbags who want trouble) don't want this march.

2) People in the Rep Ireland don't want to have to pay for this march... and why the hell should they pay for it when they really couldn't give a toss about NI politics/hatred?

Simple question, no answer.

LovelyHurling

BigArnie wrote:

The question still begs - what gives them the right to come down here... Rep of Ireland

Same reasons that were posted a few pages ago BigArnie. No matter what anybody's opinion, lets face it - at the moment Northern Ireland is British territory. Unionists comprise more than hald the North's population and because of its size can broadly be classed into two groups -

• Those who want absolute loyalty to the mainland
• Those who want loyalty to the mainland but have a grasp of the word powersharing, and understand the worries of the Republican movement

Now, as has been posted so often that people must be sick of the repetition... both of these groups have recently been sensing an attempt to flog that familiar dead horse called United Ireland. Unionists feel it is a good analogy in marching down here to the situation of Ireland 'marching' up there. The example was given of Bertie Ahern coming on BBCNI before Christmas discussing his hopes for a united Ireland, similarly Hain's reference to the same matter.
The frustration and confusion people feel in Unionists marching down O Connell St is the same frustration and confusion that Unionists feel about such sudden and strong Southern involvement in Northern affairs.

Heres where it gets complicated: very few northern loyalists disagree that southern government involvement is necessary if peace is to be kept in Ulster, the extent and onset of that Irish influence, given SFIRA participation in the Irish parliament is causing unease.

Survivors and victims in particular feel it necessary to protest at past SFIRA participation in the southern parliament, which has gone on without question for years. Now that the Irish government is becoming increasingly involved in Northern politics, they feel historical SFIRA involvement in that parliament should be recognized before moving on.

Others feel it is important to highlight Ulsters cultural differences to the south by way of this parade - cultural differences that underline our seperate ethnic and historical derivation. Given the fact that hundreds of thousands of these people live in Ulster, this should be kept in mind before jumping on the "United" ireland bandwagon. You also may not have read that the sash will not be worn by anyone on the day, and will be replaced by orange lillies instead to avoid causing offence.

Most people are marching for a combination of the above reasons.

Scumbags will undoubtedly be arriving from both sides, hopefully with minimal effect and with minimal input from Dublin scumbags.

All of the above has been posted in the past few pages apologies to anyone who just read through that for the second/ third time.

Lastly, nobody goes out to get punched, these people want to make their point and go home.

Flex

LovelyHurling wrote:

.... equally so I dont think the whole county of Tyrone should necessarily go south just if the majority are Catholic.

Hang on now, Derry and Armagh were both 55% Unionist and because of that 55% majority there was never any question of the fact that both counties in their entirity would be in the new northern province, thats the point i was making about fermanagh and tyrone (they were 55% nationalist, but they wernt allowed join the south)

If thats the case, are you saying the North as a whole entity has no right to proclaim its nationalist identity just because most overall residents are protestant? It's not a numbers game.

What is the norths 'nationalist identity'?

A United Ireland will not happen.

People once thought that no part of ireland would ever exist as a sovereign republic or any other type of nation outside the UK.....

LovelyHurling

Flex wrote:

Hang on now, Derry and Armagh were both 55% Unionist and because of that 55% majority there was never any question of the fact that both counties in their entirity would be in the new northern province, thats the point i was making about fermanagh and tyrone (they were 55% nationalist, but they wernt allowed join the south)

Yes that was probably unfair, Im not here defending that at all so you'd be as well arguing that decision with one of the deadmen who made it. I dont care if there are 5% more Unionists than nationalists, its unfair to divide a place like NI on such an insignificant few percentage points. Its not about who has 5% more or less. I wish there was a way to allow for both unionists and republicans to equally proclaim their respective national identities

What is the norths 'nationalist identity'?

republicans who see themselves as belonging not to the UK like Unionists do, but to what is now the Republic of Ireland. I'd like to see them assert their ethnic origin in as strong a way as possible without impinging on the rights of unionists to equally assert our own ethnic origins. How this model is to be properly approached can only really be decided when powersharing kicks in.

People once thought that no part of ireland would ever exist as a sovereign republic or any other type of nation outside the UK.....

Im not sure if they thought it would never happen that Southern Ireland would be taken back. I should have clarified that I meant a United Ireland will not happen within our lifetimes, nor will the traditional United Kingdom of GB and NI be recreated within our lifetimes... all of that has been changed forever and to revert to the old ways of thinking at this moment in time would only compromise all the hard work that both sides have been involved in since the troubles began. Ulster is indivisable

murphaph

BigArnie wrote:

The question still begs - what gives them the right to come down here and march at the Rep of Ireland taxpayers expense?

Simple question, no answer.

Au contraire, The Anglo-Irish agreement and subsequently the GFA gave the Government of Ireland (who represent the people of the RoI) a certain say in the affairs of part of a foreign country. The prods have as much right to march here as anyone else so long as our government (us!) interferes with Northern Ireland!

BigArnie

LovelyHurling wrote:

Same reasons that were posted a few pages ago BigArnie. No matter what anybody's opinion, lets face it - at the moment Northern Ireland is British territory. Unionists comprise more than hald the North's population and because of its size can broadly be classed into two groups -

• Those who want absolute loyalty to the mainland
• Those who want loyalty to the mainland but have a grasp of the word powersharing, and understand the worries of the Republican movement

Now, as has been posted so often that people must be sick of the repetition... both of these groups have recently been sensing an attempt to flog that familiar dead horse called United Ireland. Unionists feel it is a good analogy in marching down here to the situation of Ireland 'marching' up there. The example was given of Bertie Ahern coming on BBCNI before Christmas discussing his hopes for a united Ireland, similarly Hain's reference to the same matter.
The frustration and confusion people feel in Unionists marching down O Connell St is the same frustration and confusion that Unionists feel about such sudden and strong Southern involvement in Northern affairs.

Heres where it gets complicated: very few northern loyalists disagree that southern government involvement is necessary if peace is to be kept in Ulster, the extent and onset of that Irish influence, given SFIRA participation in the Irish parliament is causing unease.

Survivors and victims in particular feel it necessary to protest at past SFIRA participation in the southern parliament, which has gone on without question for years. Now that the Irish government is becoming increasingly involved in Northern politics, they feel historical SFIRA involvement in that parliament should be recognized before moving on.

Others feel it is important to highlight Ulsters cultural differences to the south by way of this parade - cultural differences that underline our seperate ethnic and historical derivation. Given the fact that hundreds of thousands of these people live in Ulster, this should be kept in mind before jumping on the "United" ireland bandwagon. You also may not have read that the sash will not be worn by anyone on the day, and will be replaced by orange lillies instead to avoid causing offence.

Most people are marching for a combination of the above reasons.

Scumbags will undoubtedly be arriving from both sides, hopefully with minimal effect and with minimal input from Dublin scumbags.

All of the above has been posted in the past few pages apologies to anyone who just read through that for the second/ third time.

Lastly, nobody goes out to get punched, these people want to make their point and go home.

You've completely missed my point. That being - why should Rep of Ireland taxpayers pay for a march by British citizens in Dublin? Surely Love Ulster should be paying for the policiing and clean-up, no?

BigArnie

murphaph wrote:

Au contraire, The Anglo-Irish agreement and subsequently the GFA gave the Government of Ireland (who represent the people of the RoI) a certain say in the affairs of part of a foreign country. The prods have as much right to march here as anyone else so long as our government (us!) interferes with Northern Ireland!

Okay, THAT answers my question. But seeing as this is the case, I'm assuming vested interests down South will continue to push for a United Ireland. If that's the arrangement we've all bought into, then why bitch and moan?

LordSutch

Flex wrote:

'Real' victims of the troubles? They were on both sides. People were murdered by the IRA, and people were murdered by Loyalist paramilitaries and British army. It was nearly 50-50 between both communities.

Not sure about that Flex, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of murders, bombings, shootings knee cappings were carried out by the IRA/ INLA and to a lesser extent by the UVF-LVF, and as for the Army & Police they certainly didnt intentionally go out to exterminate the Nationalist people over a thirty year period, and neither did the security forces plant Bombs in Pubs/ Shopping Centres/ Busses/ Cars/ Vans! (So please Stop trying to Re-write History)! and before you start connecting the security forces to certain murderous incidents-Dont Bother! everybody is only too aware that there were "Rogue Elements" in the Forces who are also to be diplored.
They too should be locked-up along with those Republican/Loyalist scum bags who still walk this planet!

ButcherOfNog

let them march if they want to, but i'd stay well clear of it as the gardai won't be the slightest bit intimidated by them, and if they cause any trouble, they'll start splitting heads. they get away with causing trouble up north cause of the "we know where you live" situation with the police up there. this won't apply with the gardai.

jaqian

This is a little OT but I was wondering apart from the IMO "romantic notion" of a united Ireland why would anyone want to join the Republic?

1) They've a better medical/healthcare system up there
2) Price of houses and cost of living is lower

That would change is they joined us. At the moment we're a united country in everything but name and currency. Once the UK accepts the Euro that'll be another barrier gone.

scojones

So uh, is this going ahead?

senordingdong

Lovely Hurling, I wanna ask you something; if the six counties were to fall under the Republic tomorrow, how would you feel? How do you think it would affect you?

Not just small things liek currency, sign posts and black cabs, but what would be your pro's and con's?

darkman2

senordingdong wrote:

Lovely Hurling, I wanna ask you something; if the six counties were to fall under the Republic tomorrow, how would you feel? How do you think it would affect you?

Not just small things liek currency, sign posts and black cabs, but what would be your pro's and con's?

Somehow I dont think he will be able to answer that:cool:

senordingdong

darkman2 wrote:

Somehow I dont think he will be able to answer that:cool:

Why?

darkman2

senordingdong wrote:

Why?

Because nobody you ask from the loyalist persuasion ever gives an adequate answer. Before they begin, you know it always has something to do with the 'Roman Catholic Church' and pathetic religious stuff like that. There just too backward up there with a mindset suited to the 1600s:mad:

Binomate

God save our gracious Queen tbh.

darkman2

Binomate wrote:

God save our gracious Queen tbh.

That seems to be all they can say.:rolleyes:

Binomate

I'm not a Unionist. It's just a catchy song. :v:

darkman2

Binomate wrote:

I'm not a Unionist. It's just a catchy song. :v:

sssssssssssshhhhhhhhh dont say that too loud;)

rsynnott

darkman2 wrote:

Because nobody you ask from the loyalist persuasion ever gives an adequate answer. Before they begin, you know it always has something to do with the 'Roman Catholic Church' and pathetic religious stuff like that. There just too backward up there with a mindset suited to the 1600s:mad:

All SF-ers, are, of course, completely rational when talking on the subject. Indeed.

darkman2

rsynnott wrote:

All SF-ers, are, of course, completely rational when talking on the subject. Indeed.

Just to clarify I think SF are a bunch of thugs and gangsters and I have no time for them whatsoever:mad:

senordingdong

Well I agree with the double standard-ness of the Unionists but I just want to hear it from a rational, level-headed unionist.