United Ireland Poll

Blut

A significant majority in the 6 counties dont want to be part of a united Ireland. At best, a plurality in the South want to be part of a united Ireland. And I'm sure if this plurality had the actual economic costs explained to them (would you really vote for a united Ireland if it made absolutely no difference to your day to day life, given there are already no barriers to entry or living/working between the two states, but it cost you 5,000e a year extra in taxes?) it would shrink even further.

With the growing role of the EU the importance of national sovereignty is fading anyway, give it 50 years and both North and South will simply be regional territories in a larger body. Why bother trying to force a costly unification on two populations that either dont want it or are largely indifferent to it?

SimpleSam06

I voted yes. Economically it makes sense, along the lines of wherever the British landed, they made a shite of things, and its only when the locals took up the reins that things turned around. Secondly the British don't want the north, culturally or economically. Thirdly the Republic has shown itself willing and able to absorb large populations of immigrants with no connection to Ireland at all, and without any real adverse effects. Absorbing the developed infrastructure in the North would be laughably easy by comparison.

Eoin

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I voted yes. Economically it makes sense, along the lines of wherever the British landed, they made a shite of things, and its only when the locals took up the reins that things turned around. Secondly the British don't want the north, culturally or economically. Thirdly the Republic has shown itself willing and able to absorb large populations of immigrants with no connection to Ireland at all, and without any real adverse effects. Absorbing the developed infrastructure in the North would be laughably easy by comparison.

How does it make sense economically - that seems far from a given?

Personally I think it's way too early to tell how Ireland has been able to deal with mass immigration.

SimpleSam06

eoin_s wrote: »

How does it make sense economically - that seems far from a given?

Various other posters in the thread have made the point better than I can make it. The most important issue is that you would be exchanging an administration with an interest only in maintaining the status quo with one dedicated to making the most of the resources available.

eoin_s wrote: »

Personally I think it's way too early to tell how Ireland has been able to deal with mass immigration.

In any other country where the population has increased by 10% in the last few years, all of those immigrants, there would be blood in the streets long before now. That the country has remained relatively stable is extremely encouraging.

escobar

Northern Ireland would be far better off joining the republic. I think now with the Boyne center being opened up that the relationship between all of NI and the republic has never been better.
Ian Paisley was dare I say magnaminous and friendly to Brian Cowen in his speech. My girlfriend and her family are CoI and they would like to see he two joined .
Not some thing new . Oscar wilde lovingly referred to his mother as a devout republican . She was a nationalist poet. I think we've come a long way and religious lines do not define this question.
Economically NI would benefit greatly and Brian Cowen has always said that aa all Ireland economy benefits both jurisdictions..

escobar

Northern Ireland would be far better off joining the republic. I think now with the Boyne center being opened up that the relationship between all of NI and the republic has never been better.
Ian Paisley was dare I say magnaminous and friendly to Brian Cowen in his speech. My girlfriend and her family are CoI and they would like to see he two joined .
Not some thing new . Oscar wilde lovingly referred to his mother as a devout republican . She was a nationalist poet. I think we've come a long way and religious lines do not define this question.
Economically NI would benefit greatly and Brian Cowen has always said that aa all Ireland economy benefits both jurisdictions..

Yes

Kold

Not unless we get all those retards out of there first. I don't fancy another few thousand murderous, begrudging knackers roaming this country.

thelordofcheese

Voted no, a united ireland is a terrible idea.

Actually, we should look into lumbering the english with more useless parts of ireland, i wonder if they'd be interested in taking cork off our hands for a few decades.

jjbrien

I voted no for several reasons:

While it would be a nice idea to have an united Ireland the practilities are not good;

the british goverment has to pump millions of pounds into nothern ireland to keep it going. there is no way the republic can afford this

the unionist population will never accept dublin rule and would start a civil war for which we can not be sure of the outcome

the republic is doing much better that the north lets not ruin what we have

aslo i would not be able to drive up north and get cheap boose and shopping anymore

the north may be better going independant from the uk and going it alone the eu would help it

Rb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Various other posters in the thread have made the point better than I can make it. The most important issue is that you would be exchanging an administration with an interest only in maintaining the status quo with one dedicated to making the most of the resources available.


In any other country where the population has increased by 10% in the last few years, all of those immigrants, there would be blood in the streets long before now. That the country has remained relatively stable is extremely encouraging.

Lol, do you even realise what you're talking about? Anyone with a clue realises that it makes absolutely no sense economically to Unite Ireland. There are no benefits to it whatsoever.

guinnessdrinker

An all island economy does actually make sense. A larger economy should generate greater productivity which will create greater revenue for the country.

Very simplistic but theoritically true nevertheless.

Rb

kreuzberger wrote: »

Id imagine most of them , if not all would vote no.

Well we'll soon see I suppose.

kreuzberger wrote:

I also find your use of the term "Oireland for the Oirish" quite offensive . Why on earth do you need to adopt some stage music hall accent parody to describe your fellow citizens who believe another country helping itself to part of theirs is fundamnetally undemocratic and wrong ?

Well, I think "OIreland for the OIrish" sums up the type of people that are pro-unity. Anytime I've heard someone talk about a United Ireland, they've either been from the country or some rough area of Dublin and have never been the smartest people you'd come across. They're the type who'd be opposed to the foreign nationals here, the "Came an tuk our jawbs" type of people and who curse the British and their "occupation" here so I'll mock them all I like tbh. Huge generalisation but the overwhelming majority of pro-unity people I've encountered fit the description quite well.

kreuzberger wrote:

would you like people to mock you with old chap , old bean etc for your pro British outlook ?

No, I wouldn't care. I'd consider myself to see things quite realistically i.e the fact that Uniting Ireland would be a disaster for the Republic and in general makes absolutely no sense. I'm not holding a grudge over something that happened a few hundred years ago like a lot of "pro-unity" people are (IRA/Sinn Fein Supporters included) and I realise the fact that Ireland wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the British.

kreuzberger wrote:

Your religious background is irrelevant to me and id presume to many others .

Many with an education perhaps. I worked with catholics from rougher areas in Dublin previously and they were very anti-protestant and I've experienced that attitude towards protestants many other times over the years.

kreuzberger wrote:

what your advocating is sectarian cleansing , and indeed many thousands of Irish people have been forced to leave their homes over the decades due to political ideas like this . Many thousands of southerners did indeed let people sleep in their homes due to the actions of the British governemnt . Others had to make do in refugee camps . An actual democracy would simply not give rise to such mass expulsions of a civilian population as we witnessed in the last century.

Erm, so? Again, if they don't like it so much up there, why don't they just move out down South?

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

True that they will raise their own but I'd say that their numbers will still dwindle. As time goes on more and more people will realise how petty and stupid it is to despise someone because of their religion or where they were born. Their parents may still think like that but how my opinions on things can vary wildly from my parents opinions on things and that would be the same for a lot of people. Like everything else it will take time but these people are a dieing breed.

Yeah true, I think particularly as people become more educated, such attitudes start to die anyway. I agree though, it will take time and I'd guess it'll be quite a long time yet.

Deleted User wrote: »

Apparantly in some parts of England it took nearly two hundred years for the wounds of the civil war to completely heal, neighbouring villagers refused to talk to each other...
Unfortunately the generation most affected by the troubles are in their forties now and their children in their twenties, in certain parts of northern Ireland these people never have any contact with "the other tribe". It's really down to those people not to pass on their hatrid to the next generation.

Indeed. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people try to force their beliefs or opinions on their children, so lets hope they don't stick.

Dudess wrote: »

"West Brit" is such a dumb phrase/label - exceptionally lazy, along the same lines as "PC gone mad".

Ah well then you're definitely not Irish

Indeed, it is a dumb phrase and thankfully says more about the person using it than the person it is aimed at.

O'Coonassa

rb_ie wrote: »

Anytime I've heard someone talk about a United Ireland, they've either been from the country or some rough area of Dublin and have never been the smartest people you'd come across.

Because I'm a simple culchie I will let this bigotry slide but wonder who you are to think you can condemn the entire countryside and inner city populations as intrinsically retarded. Life in the suberbs must be so advanced and enlightened

rb_ie wrote: »

Ireland wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the British.

In Europe and European in nature? I'd like to know how you think it would be different. Had we not been invaded then neither Papistry or Anglicanism would ever have darkened our land and that could have only been of benefit. I'd like to know what you mean by your statement if you wouldn't mind explaining. You seem to be implying that there has been some great advantage conferred upon us.

guinnessdrinker

rb_ie wrote: »

Well, I think "OIreland for the OIrish" sums up the type of people that are pro-unity. Anytime I've heard someone talk about a United Ireland, they've either been from the country or some rough area of Dublin and have never been the smartest people you'd come across. They're the type who'd be opposed to the foreign nationals here, the "Came an tuk our jawbs" type of people and who curse the British and their "occupation" here so I'll mock them all I like tbh. Huge generalisation but the overwhelming majority of pro-unity people I've encountered fit the description quite well.

Massive generalisation there alright rb.

Afaik, most Irish political parties are pro united Ireland apart from the Unionist parties. Bertie Ahern as recently as last week repeated in an interview with Charlie Bird that he would still like to see a united Ireland.

Whatever people say about Bertie (and I'm not a huge fan of his), I certainly wounldn't say he is a keep "OIreland for the OIrish" type of guy and he certainly isn't opposed to foreign nationals here, and I don't remember him ever curising the British publicly. So Bertie and many others like him that desire a united Ireland come nowhere near your discription of "pro unity" supporters.

kreuzberger

jjbrien wrote: »

I voted no for several reasons:

While it would be a nice idea to have an united Ireland the practilities are not good;

the british goverment has to pump millions of pounds into nothern ireland to keep it going. there is no way the republic can afford this

the british governemnt has to keep an artificially seperate entity from the rest of island going , one in which almost half its population ofetn cant even bring itself to say the words" northern Ireland" much less support its " national" football team . Such an artificial entity that has never managed to get even the most basic allegiance from almost half its population will of course be a basket case economically . Perhaps you can explain why the south can afford to give hundreds of billions in natural resources away tax free and royal free but cannot afford to take responsibility for the countrys territory ? Plus theres gold being mined there too .

the unionist population will never accept dublin rule and would start a civil war for which we can not be sure of the outcome

how will they start a civil war ? who will give them guns ? who will give them artillery ? Who would fund and supply it ? Are you seriously suggesting a tiny minority on the island would even win such a war ? One minute your claiming the south could not afford to run its own national territory because of all the money Britian has to pump into the place to prop it up - next thing your claiming a bunch of loyalists , a small minority within the country would be some sort of military superpower if they had to go it alone ?
The best i can describe this as is superstition . Old fashioned poor mouth stuff . This is what happens when you start listening to eejits like Eoghan Harris .

Throughout the worst of conflict in the 1970s, when British withdrawls looked like a real possibility extreme loyalism signalled on a number of occasions it would accept a united Ireland under certain conditions had they no other choice providing certain gurantees were given . Talk of civil war is an absolute fantasy , a bogeyman to scare children with . And the notion of them winning it is laughable in the extreme .

kreuzberger

rb_ie wrote: »

Lol, do you even realise what you're talking about? Anyone with a clue realises that it makes absolutely no sense economically to Unite Ireland. There are no benefits to it whatsoever.

yeah , like a chronically undrpopulated country doesnt need over a million new citizens . A small country doesnt need more territory and territorial waters. And like sorting out the artifical carve up of a country whose economy was wrecked by partition couldnt make any economic sense .
To sensible people its a no brainer . People and territory arent actual resources to anyones economy , as all educated people know .


And of course diseases like foot and mouth and all the rest respect borders . They know when theyre in co tyrone and armagh not to be hopping over the ditch and causing mayhem with souths agriculture . Not like foot and mouth would cause much problems like to anyones agriculturally based economy . Less educated people , rough types as you poit out , might regard an actual ocean between the frighteningly disease ridden British market and Irelands as a good idea . But of course theyre probably " Oirish" , so wouldnt really know what they were on about .

saoranach

Interesting thread seeing as tomorrow is the anniversary of Francis Hughes death on hungerstrike in 1981.

People are entitled to their opinions but whenever i hear comments like leave the north to itself etc it sickens me

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Border-Rat wrote: »

I didn't ask you what you'd expect, I asked you how you'd feel about it. Can you answer the question or not?

COMPLETELY INDIFFERENT. Happy?

O'Connassa wrote:

"The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of The Empire provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again." - Daniel O'Connell

Any clearer?

Not really, no. I still don't see how I'm classed as being part of "The Empire", or how being a "West Briton" benefits me. If anything, Britain is even more conservative then Ireland is and I hate conservatism.

O'Coonassa

kreuzberger wrote: »

Less educated people , rough types as you poit out , might regard an actual ocean between the frighteningly disease ridden British market and Irelands as a good idea . But of course theyre probably " Oirish" , so wouldnt really know what they were on about .

The Unionists were begging to be allowed to be Irish in previous outbreaks.

kreuzberger

rb_ie wrote: »

Well we'll soon see I suppose.

Well, I think "OIreland for the OIrish" sums up the type of people that are pro-unity. Anytime I've heard someone talk about a United Ireland, they've either been from the country or some rough area of Dublin

so erm..pretty much the majority of the souths population

and have never been the smartest people you'd come across.

you actually dont sound very clever yourself tbh , quite ill mannered in fact

They're the type who'd be opposed to the foreign nationals here, the "Came an tuk our jawbs" type of people and who curse the British and their "occupation" here so I'll mock them all I like tbh. Huge generalisation but the overwhelming majority of pro-unity people I've encountered fit the description quite well.

righto , but im sure youll have no problem being mocked in turn

No, I wouldn't care. I'd consider myself to see things quite realistically i.e the fact that Uniting Ireland would be a disaster for the Republic and in general makes absolutely no sense. I'm not holding a grudge over something that happened a few hundred years ago like a lot of "pro-unity" people are (IRA/Sinn Fein Supporters included) and I realise the fact that Ireland wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the British.

population regularly decimated , historically economically destroyed after being reduced to a potato culture for a few centuries when education and property ownership was outlawed , went from using europes first water powered mills to almost total illiteracy and mass starvation 900 years later , ignorance and illiteracy leading to rampant clericalism . And then carved up in 2 . An educated sensible person would regard this as a major case of arrested social , cultural , technological and economical development .A total and unmitigated disaster in other words . Holding a grudge is a pointless exercise of course , but every bit as pointless in engaging in revisionism which hails centuries of war and arrested development as a positive thing for any country .

Many with an education perhaps. I worked with catholics from rougher areas in Dublin previously and they were very anti-protestant and I've experienced that attitude towards protestants many other times over the years.

Have you considered the possibility that their negative attitude and the negative attitudes youve encountered personally was a direct result from meeting yourself and encountering your overwhelming snobbery and ignorance? Because its evident much of the contnts of your posts are highly contrived insults which some would regard as little more than childish attention seeking .

Erm, so? Again, if they don't like it so much up there, why don't they just move out down South?

From your wholly negative and insulting descriptions of your fellow citizens in the south one would wonder why you yourself dont leave and head for somewhere your snobbery/bigtry is more appreciated .

Yeah true, I think particularly as people become more educated, such attitudes start to die anyway. I agree though, it will take time and I'd guess it'll be quite a long time yet.



Indeed. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people try to force their beliefs or opinions on their children, so lets hope they don't stick.

perhaps the same could be said about yourself . I honestly hope your not passing this stuff on to any children

Indeed, it is a dumb phrase and thankfully says more about the person using it than the person it is aimed at.

In many cases actually it says more about the person its used to describe . After all old chap , where would O'Ireland be today without dear old blighty ? wot wot ?

raather

kreuzberger

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

An all island economy does actually make sense. A larger economy should generate greater productivity which will create greater revenue for the country.

Very simplistic but theoritically true nevertheless.

a no brainer

kreuzberger

O'Coonassa wrote: »

The Unionists were begging to be allowed to be Irish in previous outbreaks.

indeed they were .The orange order were rehearsing riverdance at one stage

AckwelFoley

To be honest, there are so many bitter Ulster Loyalists that its really impossible to try and be nice to them. There are many that are fine and just proud of their heritage, but as long as they see the south as a "Terrorist Nazi state controlled by rome" i think we are smacking our head of a wall trying to reach out the hand of frendship to them.

I suggest we poke them with a stick instead.

SimpleSam06

rb_ie wrote: »

Lol

Ah, you have convinced me with your superior diction and eloquence.

/wot wot

O'Coonassa

snyper wrote: »

as long as they see the south as a "Terrorist Nazi state controlled by rome"

IMO we can do something about their mis-perceptions by stopping the Angelus being played over the airwaves by the National broadcaster and also by taking the running of State Education away from the Roman Catholic Church.

From their side of the fence we are after all the Jacobite ones who wanted to see a return an absolute feudal type monarchy and who set them on fire for being ye heretickes. They're right to be suspicious so long as there are priests in all the schools.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

O'Coonassa wrote: »

IMO we can do something about their mis-perceptions by stopping the Angelus being played over the airwaves by the National broadcaster and also by taking the running of State Education away from the Roman Catholic Church.

From their side of the fence we are after all the Jacobite ones who wanted to see a return an absolute feudal type monarchy and who set them on fire for being ye heretickes. They're right to be suspicious so long as there are priests in all the schools.

Would the unionists be required to adopt our education system? Including compulsory Irish and whatever the legal requirement is for religious education?

O'Coonassa

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Would the unionists be required to adopt our education system? Including compulsory Irish and whatever the legal requirement is for religious education?

But there shouldn't be 'compulsory' Irish and what is religion doing in the schools of a supposedly secular State I'd like to know?

kreuzberger

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Would the unionists be required to adopt our education system? Including compulsory Irish and whatever the legal requirement is for religious education?

surely these are very simple issues that could be dealt with in any conference for a future united Ireland . Hardly great hurdles to over come . A semi federal arrangement could also ensure unionist sensitivites and cultural aversions dont impact upon everyone else . Its not exactly rocket science .

guinnessdrinker

snyper wrote: »

To be honest, there are so many bitter Ulster Loyalists that its really impossible to try and be nice to them.

This may be true but we should not stop trying.

snyper wrote: »

There are many that are fine and just proud of their heritage, but as long as they see the south as a "Terrorist Nazi state controlled by rome" i think we are smacking our head of a wall trying to reach out the hand of frendship to them.

This outdated view of the "south" was fed to them for years by their leaders who ruled under the the use of fear of the romanists and southerners and hatred of all things Irish.

In reality we have more in common with each other than we think. This country is big enough to have more than one culture. We have been multi cultural for a while now. Rome rule is not on the agenda anymore.

snyper wrote: »

I suggest we poke them with a stick instead.

Ah come on Snyper!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

kreuzberger wrote: »

surely these are very simple issues that could be dealt with in any conference for a future united Ireland . Hardly great hurdles to over come . A semi federal arrangement could also ensure unionist sensitivites and cultural aversions dont impact upon everyone else . Its not exactly rocket science .

In theory, yes, but this is a United Ireland. If it's not a major issue, there are people who will TURN it into a major issue. And if unionist cultural aversions share little with republic ones, what's the benefit to them of joining?

O'Connassa - I agree with you, but the problem is the law doesn't. There IS cumpolsory irish, there IS religion on the state education system. Will it be applied to the entire Ireland it it were to be united?

kreuzberger

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

In theory, yes, but this is a United Ireland. If it's not a major issue, there are people who will TURN it into a major issue.

you dont seem to have grasped what ive said . Issues like these can very easily be dealt with by sitting down beforehand and discussing them amicably with unionists , asking them what theyd like to see and why , and then coming to an agreement we can both live with . Democracy in other words . Participative democracy .

And if unionist cultural aversions share little with republic ones, what's the benefit to them of joining?

At present unionist representation in the westminster parliament makes up about 1% . In an Irish parliament the formerly unionist bloc would make up around 20% , effectively making them co-alition partners for life . That is firmly in control of their own futures and not subject to the whims of a British cabinet playing one side off against another and wondering whats coming down the road next . In partnership with people whod love to be in patnership with them at long last , where mutual interests dictate the political relationship and where mutual interests become firmly national interests . How that is not to their benefit and ours also I dont know .
And to be citizens of a samll country with what appears to be some serious oil and gas wealth would be a definite advantage to them . Providing of course that country took it back from the likes of shell and Tony OReilly instead of giving hundreds of billions of euro away for free , tax free , royalty free . A united Ireland would require more fundmanetal change than getting rid of a few Bishops and the angelus and its a change wed all be the better and more prosperous for ..

thelordofcheese

kreuzberger wrote: »

Issues like these can very easily be dealt with by sitting down beforehand and discussing them amicably with unionists

Aye, because that's worked pretty well in the past...

Rb

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Because I'm a simple culchie I will let this bigotry slide but wonder who you are to think you can condemn the entire countryside and inner city populations as intrinsically retarded. Life in the suberbs must be so advanced and enlightened

I never said all people from the country were retarded, nor people from the inner city. I said in my experience, those who've expressed pro-unity views have usually been from the country or rougher areas of Dublin, and haven't expressed them in the most intelligent manner (Usually something along the lines of "Them English baaastards came and took ours countries and now they won't give back the North durr we should go shoot them bastards".)

Also, please note the use of the word "usually" and I'm basing it on my experiences.

O'Coonassa wrote:

In Europe and European in nature? I'd like to know how you think it would be different. Had we not been invaded then neither Papistry or Anglicanism would ever have darkened our land and that could have only been of benefit. I'd like to know what you mean by your statement if you wouldn't mind explaining. You seem to be implying that there has been some great advantage conferred upon us.

Compare Ireland pre-invasion to Ireland post-invasion/our independence. I think that the country progessed as a whole quicker than it would have done on it's own.

kreuzberger wrote: »

yeah , like a chronically undrpopulated country doesnt need over a million new citizens . A small country doesnt need more territory and territorial waters. And like sorting out the artifical carve up of a country whose economy was wrecked by partition couldnt make any economic sense .
To sensible people its a no brainer . People and territory arent actual resources to anyones economy , as all educated people know .

The sheer amount of money that is being pumped into the North has already been explained, why would we want to take on such a massive financial burden? Particularly at a time where our economy is slowly going downwards and the consequences of that will be felt in the near future, if not already.

Kreuzberger wrote:

And of course diseases like foot and mouth and all the rest respect borders . They know when theyre in co tyrone and armagh not to be hopping over the ditch and causing mayhem with souths agriculture . Not like foot and mouth would cause much problems like to anyones agriculturally based economy . Less educated people , rough types as you poit out , might regard an actual ocean between the frighteningly disease ridden British market and Irelands as a good idea . But of course theyre probably " Oirish" , so wouldnt really know what they were on about .

Lol, talking about scraping the barrel.

kreuzberger wrote: »

so erm..pretty much the majority of the souths population

Um, what? Are you pointing out that the majority of the Souths population is comprised of people from the country or what the hell are you trying to say?

kreuzberger wrote:

you actually dont sound very clever yourself tbh , quite ill mannered in fact

Smart enough to realise how stupid the idea of Uniting Ireland is anyway.

kreuzberger wrote:

righto , but im sure youll have no problem being mocked in turn

I'd laugh at anyone who came out with "Immigrants comin here an takin' our jawbs" and then tried to mock me tbh.

kreuzberger wrote:

Have you considered the possibility that their negative attitude and the negative attitudes youve encountered personally was a direct result from meeting yourself and encountering your overwhelming snobbery and ignorance? Because its evident much of the contnts of your posts are highly contrived insults which some would regard as little more than childish attention seeking .

Those I worked with weren't even aware I was protestant at the time, they just brought it up in conversation and usually in a derogatory way. Obviously I didn't really care because I know I'm better than them and that they'll be stuck in that dead end job the rest of their days, but it just goes to show that religion-based hatred is still alive in parts of the South today.

I don't generally talk about politics/money/etc with people I don't know so well so I very much doubt I caused their attitudes behind it. Also, I'm not attempting to insult anyone, if I want to insult people I'd go ahead and do it. Don't hate me just because I don't subscribe to your "Up the RA! Eire 32! F*ck the British!!" ways of thinking:p

kreuzberger wrote:

From your wholly negative and insulting descriptions of your fellow citizens in the south one would wonder why you yourself dont leave and head for somewhere your snobbery/bigtry is more appreciated .

Fellow citizens? It's only a small portion of people I've encountered, and they've been a portion that I really could care less about what they think of me to be very honest with you. (Referring to the pro-unity people I've encountered in the South). I'm sure there's plenty of educated, well spoken pro-unity people out there, you're doing a relatively good job of presenting your point in comparison with a lot of the pro-unity crap I've heard being spouted from people with "Eire 32" tattoos or who support Celtic for political reasons/associations.

You must realise that not everyone is pro-unity, and to be honest the overwhelming majority of people really couldn't care less what happens. Most people don't even think about the situation unless it's brought up (which it rarely is in passing conversation). I've no problem with people who are pro-unity, they're entitled to their opinions, I just don't want them shoved down my throat or to be embarrassed by knackers going and attacking orange men in the city centre.

kreuzberger wrote:

perhaps the same could be said about yourself . I honestly hope your not passing this stuff on to any children

Lol, so because I'm anti-treaty I'm automatically wrong? So I shouldn't be entitled to express my opinion because you think it's wrong? Well, I'm sorry Hitler, but you can happily go f*ck yourself.

kreuzberger wrote:

In many cases actually it says more about the person its used to describe . After all old chap , where would O'Ireland be today without dear old blighty ? wot wot ?

raather

Um, no. You're wrong there Ted.

kreuzberger

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Aye, because that's worked pretty well in the past...

it was working pretty well during the Feakle talks in the mid 70s . Do you remember what happened , being an expert on Irelands past ?

Rb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Aye, because that's worked pretty well in the past...

Lol

Dudess

kreuzberger wrote: »

In many cases actually it says more about the person its used to describe . After all old chap , where would O'Ireland be today without dear old blighty ? wot wot ?

raather

So how exactly would you define a "west Brit"? My heart says yes to a united Ireland (my head says no) but I can't stand that phrase.

stovelid

kreuzberger wrote: »

geologists

kreuzberger

Dudess wrote: »

So how exactly would you define a "west Brit"? My heart says yes to a united Ireland (my head says no) but I can't stand that phrase.

if your heart says yes to a united Ireland then you are most definitely not a west brit . If its only your head that says no it only means youve been fed too much propaganda by west brit types in the media warning of doom , gloom , the end of the world etc etc etc . Sadly theyve run our media for decades ( Harris , Cruise Obrien and associated loons) and the most draconian censorship theyve introduced has meant that for a long time nobody was able to argue back with them .

I had a stab at defning west britonism here

What is commonly known , and indeed commonly despised , as a west briton is someone who generally , and indeed instinctively , takes Britians side in any dispute involving his own country and looks up to Britian generally in all matters . Taking social political and cultural cues from accross the Irish sea whenever they can . And without fail trying to inflict them on us all , and generally displaying a childish anger when his/her fawning is derided as childish and embarasssing in mentality by their fellow citizens . They in turn deride their fellow citizens for their backwardness , give out about " Gah" etc and all the rest . But their ilk and equivalent has long been in our society and theres nothing remotely modern in their approach , old as the proverbial hills . We used to call them castle catholics , shoneens etc. The west Briton honestly believes this is all modern , mature etc . However its not at all , its an example of cultural cringe common to may post colonial societies and ben a feature of our society for centuries . At one time their equivalent may for example have worn a top hat and monacle with a picture of um big queen on their grass hut wall despite living in the jungle and appearing ridiculous , . A prime example of ridiculous west Briton behaviour was former Taoiseach John Brutons nauseating fawning over Charles Windosr during his vist to Dublin during the 90s . I remember Bruton announced to him in front of he media quite unashamedly that he , charles windsor , was the personification of what we Irish people strive to be during a bash in Dublin castle , during which Bruton had moist eyes Personally Ive never striven to be a big eared, inbred , adulterous , granny snatching , wife assassinating commander of the parachute regiment who needs another man to wipe my bottom . But then again im not John Bruton thankfully .

He still describes the moment as the proudest in his life , which Im sure makes his wife and kids , their marriage , births etc very happy .

Generally their opinion is we should apologise to Britian for our aggression and various treacherous stabs in the back . Refusal to adopt this position leads to cries of anti British obsession etc , despite coming from an obviously obssessed individual with a mission and agenda.

Biggest examples would be Kevin Myers , Eoghan Harris , Ruth Dudley Edwards , Mary Ellon Synon , Tony OReilly , John Bruton and a host of other unbalanced media quacks

Dudess

Despise all of them except for Bruton. But I wouldn't say I've been fed propaganda by the likes of them since I laugh at what they say.

Also, aren't Kevin Myers and Mary Ellen Synon British?

guinnessdrinker

I don't like the term West Brit but I am puzzled by Irish people that leap at any opportunity to defend Britian at any given chance.

Dudess wrote: »

Also, aren't Kevin Myers and Mary Ellen Synon British?

I think Kevin Myers is Irish but I could be wrong.

kreuzberger

kreuzberger wrote: »

if your heart says yes to a united Ireland then you are most definitely not a west brit . If its only your head that says no it only means youve been fed too much propaganda by west brit types in the media warning of doom , gloom , the end of the world etc etc etc . Sadly theyve run our media for decades ( Harris , Cruise Obrien and associated loons) and the most draconian censorship theyve introduced has meant that for a long time nobody was able to argue back with them .

I had a stab at defning west britonism here




Biggest examples would be Kevin Myers , Eoghan Harris , Ruth Dudley Edwards , Mary Ellon Synon , Tony OReilly , John Bruton and a host of other unbalanced media quacks

By your definition, anyone that sees anything in the UK in a positive light is a "west brit". Then that would mean most of the country as they watch the BBC read UK based newspapers etc. Do you read UK papers or watch the BBC/ITC/C4 or SKY etc - if so you're a west brit!

stovelid

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I think Kevin Myers is Irish but I could be wrong.

He's from Leicester.

Rb

kreuzberger wrote: »

if your heart says yes to a united Ireland then you are most definitely not a west brit . If its only your head that says no it only means youve been fed too much propaganda by west brit types in the media warning of doom , gloom , the end of the world etc etc etc . Sadly theyve run our media for decades ( Harris , Cruise Obrien and associated loons) and the most draconian censorship theyve introduced has meant that for a long time nobody was able to argue back with them .

I had a stab at defning west britonism here




Biggest examples would be Kevin Myers , Eoghan Harris , Ruth Dudley Edwards , Mary Ellon Synon , Tony OReilly , John Bruton and a host of other unbalanced media quacks

Wow, I'm shocked you went through the trouble of typing all that out. Just goes to show how passionate some of you IRA hugging, terrorism supporting, immigrant bashing people really are.

To be honest, if you're using the term "West Brit" (a term coined over 200 years ago) regularly you're probably no better than the skanger sitting down the back of the bus with a celtic jersey on having a few joints.

Rb

Deleted User wrote: »

By your definition, anyone that sees anything in the UK in a positive light is a "west brit". Then that would mean most of the country as they watch the BBC read UK based newspapers etc. Do you read UK papers or watch the BBC/ITC/C4 or SKY etc - if so you're a west brit!

Well ya know, it wouldn't go down well with his Sinn Fein/IRA buddies/family members if he was to say anything positive about Britain afterall.

kreuzberger

I think Albert Reynolds once mistakenly referred to John Bruton as " John Unionist" once in Leinster House causing a bit of a kerfuffle . Indeed Bruton once called himself a unionist . Ive no problem with unionism assuch , its just the fawning and dishonesty that unionist converts whove seen the light engage in that sicken me most .

Conor Cruise OBrien is another horrible example , and another mentalist . His and Paddy Donegans wrecking of the Feakle talks and then denunciations of secret peace talks between the provos and loyalists in the mid 70s , which wrecked them because they wer supposed to be secret , were a major setback for peace in this country . Desperate stuff altogether . The censorship regime in RTE he and Harris were responsible for was atrocious . That is a prime reason why we have such a crap national broadcaster today . Journalists were selected not on ability but their willingness to toe a pro British line . Initiative and balance wasnt just stifled but regarded as literally subversive for decades . Whilst its easy to laugh at these people now the power they weilded was very real , as was the damage they did to this country .

Synon is from an Irish American background but brought up here . Myarse is from an Irish background but brought up in England . Eoghan Harris was brought here by aliens as an experiment .

The chief proponent of the we cant afford to be Irish agument was Garret Fitzgerald , the man who advocated taxing childrens shoes because women with small feet were wearing them .

Another tosser .

Kold

Kreuzberger, what exactly is your relationship to the north? Are you from there? Do you have family there? If not, I don't particularly see why you should care.

Kold

Kold wrote: »

Kreuzberger, what exactly is your relationship to the north? Are you from there? Do you have family there? If not, I don't particularly see why you should care.

I don't think it really matters, he just hates Britain!

kreuzberger

Deleted User wrote: »

By your definition, anyone that sees anything in the UK in a positive light is a "west brit". Then that would mean most of the country as they watch the BBC read UK based newspapers etc. Do you read UK papers or watch the BBC/ITC/C4 or SKY etc - if so you're a west brit!

no no no thats nonsense , not what i said at all . A perfectly rational human being is quite capable of seeing very positive things within english society , of which there are many . What I have criticised are the pathetic shortcomings in Irish society , not english . A perfectly rational human being is also capable of engaging with my argument without misrepresenting it to this ridiculous extent .

Wow, I'm shocked you went through the trouble of typing all that out. Just goes to show how passionate some of you IRA hugging, terrorism supporting, immigrant bashing people really are.

To be honest, if you're using the term "West Brit" (a term coined over 200 years ago) regularly you're probably no better than the skanger sitting down the back of the bus with a celtic jersey on having a few joints.

and this . None of this is rational . Woefully exaggerated rubbish and accusations due to my criticism of British policy in Ireland . Instinctively defensive of mother england . An actual englishman would be much more likely to take a balanced approach , say youve a point etc , and not engage in this childish dishonesty . Thats why ive more time for a brit than a west brit .

javaboy

Kold wrote: »

Kreuzberger, what exactly is your relationship to the north? Are you from there? Do you have family there? If not, I don't particularly see why you should care.

By that logic, most of us shouldn't give a flying fcuk about Tibet/Burma/Sudan etc. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I can get on with enjoying the Olympics without feeling conflicted.