United Ireland

Kalashnikov_Kid

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm not stupid, I don't have to go to a place before forming an opinion.

I've been to Ni , not too much, and if I never visit the place again I will be delighted.

Far too many punters making capital around stupid marches songs flowers games for my liking.

I prefer to live in the 21st century horse, not the 1690s.

That's if you don't mind of course.

Of course not horse you keep up the ill-informed hyperbolic sweeping generalisations and see how many people actually listen to you.

As someone who has grown up in a border community I have a slight gripe about people who talk sh1te about something they actually know nothing about.

So hope you dont mind that either

Bottle_of_Smoke

Jakkass wrote: »

If there is plenty to support it provide it. As for "political problems", I'm quite sure for some that he did, however he never engaged in violence personally.

The difference between the IRA response and Paisleys response was that Paisleys response was non-violent.

At this very moment looking at a photo from 1968 of Ian Paisley holding a wooden club with nails through it in preparation for a civil rights parade. The book is "The IRA" by Tim Pat Coogan.

Bottle_of_Smoke

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

So English people don't want to be British, wtf? I'm wasting my time here.

.

A large amount don't. Ever hear of English Nationalists? They may agree they're British in a geographical sense. Nationally however they see themselves having as much in common with those in Scotland/Wales as a German would with an Italian or a Spaniard.

DoireNod

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

At this very moment looking at a photo from 1968 of Ian Paisley holding a wooden club with nails through it in preparation for a civil rights parade. The book is "The IRA" by Tim Pat Coogan.

Seriously!?

I thought he was a saint, no? :P

getz

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

LMAO

Well we've all seen how britains 500 year "empire" is in fact an object lesson how NOT to run an empire... and should apologise for all the silliness it has caused in trying to rule countries all over the world, and have had to been fought out of every where they go

every guerilla army thay have faced has defeated them ... from the zulu's to the boys in the taliban who are sending you's all home in boxes

GOD SHAGGED THE QUEEN

as long as statments like this come out of the republic,i can see why people living in northern ireland do not wish a united ireland,why the moderator hasent banned this i will never know,

Dragan

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

Simple question

Would you support or like to have a united Ireland ? ? ?

Why would i support a concept that never existed in the first place?

DoireNod

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm not stupid, I don't have to go to a place before forming an opinion...

If you form an opinion on a place (or anything) without having been there (or experienced it) it is, at best, an uninformed opinion and in itself, prejudice. Due to this fact, you'll have to just accept that flak you get for expressing such an opinion. Your comment was, as I pointed out, ironically ignorant.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dragan wrote: »

Why would i support a concept that never existed in the first place?

Yes, how did we ever allow those first women to vote?

Oops, wrong thread!

DoireNod

Dragan wrote: »

Why would i support a concept that never existed in the first place?

The concept never existed? As far as I can see, the concept of the island of Ireland being one and unified is a concept which has been around for hundreds of years.

It may not have ever existed in practice, although some historians may disagree with you.

Little Mickey

This country with with 26 counties doesn't even work properly, the idiots just can run it, so imagine if it had 32 counties!

manc

Have people forgotten about the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement Referendum which had

* The Republic of Ireland to give up its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland and Britain to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920


In the Irish Republic, the turnout was 55%, of whom 94% voted in favour of the Belfast Agreement and in favour of giving up Eire's constitutional claim to Northern Ireland.

In the North the turnout was 81%, of whom 71% voted in favour.


I think that makes it a clear majority don't want a united ireland...and we can't afford it anyway

Bottle_of_Smoke

manc wrote: »

Have people forgotten about the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement Referendum which had

* The Republic of Ireland to give up its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland and Britain to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920


In the Irish Republic, the turnout was 55%, of whom 94% voted in favour of the Belfast Agreement and in favour of giving up Eire's constitutional claim to Northern Ireland.

In the North the turnout was 81%, of whom 71% voted in favour.


I think that makes it a clear majority don't want a united ireland...and we can't afford it anyway

I don't think it does. I think it meant that the vast majority would prefer a peaceful Northern Ireland than a constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. It doesn't however mean they wouldn't prefer a peaceful United Ireland. A hypothetical concept if ever there was one.

Stev_o

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

LMAO

Well we've all seen how britains 500 year "empire" is in fact an object lesson how NOT to run an empire... and should apologise for all the silliness it has caused in trying to rule countries all over the world, and have had to been fought out of every where they go

every guerilla army thay have faced has defeated them ... from the zulu's to the boys in the taliban who are sending you's all home in boxes

GOD SHAGGED THE QUEEN

This post pretty much sums up why we have a ****e education system.

You know obviously don't have a clue.

Theta

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

LMAO

Well we've all seen how britains 500 year "empire" is in fact an object lesson how NOT to run an empire... and should apologise for all the silliness it has caused in trying to rule countries all over the world, and have had to been fought out of every where they go

every guerilla army thay have faced has defeated them ... from the zulu's to the boys in the taliban who are sending you's all home in boxes

GOD SHAGGED THE QUEEN

Well you clearly haven't a bean! First of all you should read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ulundi

Hint its where there brits won the war against the Zulus.

Read before you post and you wont sound so stupid.

destroyer

Dragan wrote: »

Why would i support a concept that never existed in the first place?

Why not?

Deedsie

Dragan wrote: »

Why would i support a concept that never existed in the first place?

Why would you leave such a vague and useless comment in a discussion?

The Act of Union didnt exist at one point someone had to support it for it to exist. As did every other moment in human history... Was Ireland not united as the Kingdom of Ireland for a long time?

walrusgumble

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

The biggest rallying cry the loyalist/protestants have...NO SURRENDER ... NO SURRENDER ... NO SURRENDER

Which paisley shouted at every opportunity

well i did give examples of pasiley's direct and indirect involvement or association with paramilitarties. not to mention the fact he shared a platform with bill the rat wright of lvf fame.

but no surrender does not neccessarily mean to resort to violence. there are/were, like it no not unionist who shared the not an inch and no surrender mentality but completely dispised violence. in fairness i know what you are saying, and lets face facts, paisley did indirectly and at least knew of the extremist who would be willing to use arms.

i doubt paisley would agree or accept that he meant violence (he would thou)

dlofnep

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

So English people don't want to be British, wtf? I'm wasting my time here.

.

Yes, you are wasting your time because you haven't made once ounce of sense yet. Not anywhere did I state that the English people did not want to be British. I stated that the majority of the people in Britain and Ireland support Irish Unity over the north remaining in the UK. I then presented you with the data from 19 separate polls taken over the past 2 decades by the British Social Attitudes survey which confirms this.

dlofnep

manc wrote: »

Have people forgotten about the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement Referendum which had

* The Republic of Ireland to give up its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland and Britain to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920

We're well aware of the Good Friday Agreement and it's stipulations. It gives up the territorial claim as a matter of default, but does not give up the goal of Irish Unity. We've already covered this, on a number of occasions.

“that it is for the people of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a United Ireland, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland”.

Pal

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

Simple question

Would you support or like to have a united Ireland ? ? ?

That's two questions

shivkk06

yes deinately support a united ireland dont think w ll ever see it tho

walrusgumble

Jakkass wrote: »

What Peter Robinson did is nothing to do with Paisley himself. As for whether or not Paisley did reprimand him, we don't know as we don't have knowledge of all of his conversations.



I need backup for this. As much as I disagree with Ian Paisleys views on certain issues there is no evidence that he was involved in paramilitarism in the North.

his paper the Protestant Telegraph was an extremely anti catholic paper and at times complete bigatory.



If there is plenty to support it provide it. As for "political problems", I'm quite sure for some that he did, however he never engaged in violence personally.

The difference between the IRA response and Paisleys response was that Paisleys response was non-violent.



Don't surrender to changes in political aims and political direction in the North. I found this very obtuse, but it doesn't constitute inciting violence.

check out "Paisley from demoagouge to democrat" by Ed Moloney as one example. then there is for god and ulster The evolution of Ian Paisley and the movement he led. by Andrew R.Holmes

No, no one is saying that he personally was involved in violence or even have any involvement in raising of money - sure he use to be criticised by some of his people in the ealry years for failing to join the army during the war years.

Of course this book was written by a former editor of the northern ireland section of the irish times. Paisley has never had too much of a problem sharing platforms with Billy wright, so long as it kept his image with extreme unionists up.

these are not the best realiable sources, some will lllllllloooooooooovvvvve the second one, but it was at few minutes notice. i will further provide better sources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6289827.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Resistance

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/uorgan.htm

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/25807

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/paramilitary-pretentions-98396.html

http://www.irish-association.org/archives/stevebruce11_oct03.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rBGeWY-Z_hk/RiUcGLsNF1I/AAAAAAAAAC8/vMxP12AKkwU/s320/Ulster-Resistance.jpg

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley

http://www.inc.ie/duped.html

http://www.tobyharnden.com/ni_archive_docs.htm


as for the comparision of both the ira and paisley . i was referring to how either of them would grab the peoples attention when the other did / say something. So you think that paisley was right not to tell people not to retailate when he knowingly made his rants? blocking progress despite republicans offering serious compromises to their postion - (thank god those days are over)

walrusgumble

Hagar wrote: »

Ian Paisley addressed a rally where he held up a firearms licence and so did an estimated 500 members of the crowd he addressed. No orchestrated threat of violence there what?




Full article here


Who needs illegal armies when you have firepower like that sanctioned by a sectarian police force?


As for being a man of the cloth, if you count mail order ministries you absolutely correct.

shhhhhhhhh there are people in this part of the country like RTE who thinks he's a great man altogether. shhh, people might cry

walrusgumble

manc wrote: »

Have people forgotten about the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement Referendum which had

* The Republic of Ireland to give up its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland and Britain to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920


In the Irish Republic, the turnout was 55%, of whom 94% voted in favour of the Belfast Agreement and in favour of giving up Eire's constitutional claim to Northern Ireland.

In the North the turnout was 81%, of whom 71% voted in favour.


I think that makes it a clear majority don't want a united ireland...and we can't afford it anyway

very strange way of interpreting the GFA and St Andrews agreement.

maybe you should read the new artilces of 2 and three of the constitution then. GFA and the constitution simply reconfirms the political attitudes of both british and irish governments and its people that the only way a united ireland would be achieved would be via consent of the people of northern ireland and that at this moment, ni was in fact part of the UK - being extremely childess and unhelpful to think otherwise

whilst ireland did give up the island, in pratice it was already gone, clear clues being differnt army, police, currency etc.

People are ireland agreed to vote on anything that would end the violence and reduce the sensibilities of unionists. in return, the irish got formal recongnition that in fact, contrary to what the likes of Thatcher use to say, the south does have an entitlement and say over issues on the north - look at the cross boarder councils.

Fratton Fred

walrusgumble wrote: »

the irish got formal recongnition that in fact, contrary to what the likes of Thatcher use to say, the south does have an entitlement and say over issues on the north - look at the cross boarder councils.

I thought Thatcher did acknowledge that in the 1985 Anglo Irish agreement?

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought Thatcher did acknowledge that in the 1985 Anglo Irish agreement?

sorry fratton, i should have pointed out that it was not always hers or heathes attitude during negotiations with irish ministers either when in downing st, campaigning at the european convention on human rights and the un . but yes the agreement was there.

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

check out "Paisley from demoagouge to democrat" by Ed Moloney as one example. then there is for god and ulster The evolution of Ian Paisley and the movement he led. by Andrew R.Holmes

No, no one is saying that he personally was involved in violence or even have any involvement in raising of money - sure he use to be criticised by some of his people in the ealry years for failing to join the army during the war years.

Of course this book was written by a former editor of the northern ireland section of the irish times. Paisley has never had too much of a problem sharing platforms with Billy wright, so long as it kept his image with extreme unionists up.

these are not the best realiable sources, some will lllllllloooooooooovvvvve the second one, but it was at few minutes notice. i will further provide better sources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6289827.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Resistance

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/uorgan.htm

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/25807

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/paramilitary-pretentions-98396.html

http://www.irish-association.org/archives/stevebruce11_oct03.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rBGeWY-Z_hk/RiUcGLsNF1I/AAAAAAAAAC8/vMxP12AKkwU/s320/Ulster-Resistance.jpg

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley

http://www.inc.ie/duped.html

http://www.tobyharnden.com/ni_archive_docs.htm


as for the comparision of both the ira and paisley . i was referring to how either of them would grab the peoples attention when the other did / say something. So you think that paisley was right not to tell people not to retailate when he knowingly made his rants? blocking progress despite republicans offering serious compromises to their postion - (thank god those days are over)

I've read the book and was a bit skeptical of Ed Moloney because he can be a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but it is VERY GOOD, well worth a read. But I think Paisley's attitude to violence and the loyalists could be summed up as it states in the book " We're with you so long as you don't get caught"

McArmalite

The purpose of this thread and the poll is pointless, though doubtless those behind it have their agenda as usual. As I've said many's a time before, boards.ie is INFESTED with unionists :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Anyway, polls consistently have shown down the years that 80% of people want a United Ireland

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13158.asp

MarchDub

manc wrote: »

Have people forgotten about the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement Referendum which had

* The Republic of Ireland to give up its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland and Britain to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920

Perhaps you have not read the actual document of the GFA? The change in wording for Articles 2 and 3 does indeed alter but no where does the GFA say that the desire of a United Ireland is put aside by the Republic. In fact, this is the reason why so many Unionists did not like the GFA. They had wanted the notion of a united Ireland to be totally surrendered - but it was not.

Article 3 It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions,

This is a far cry from "giving up" the aspiration of a United Ireland.

philologos

McArmalite wrote: »

The purpose of this thread and the poll is pointless, though doubtless those behind it have their agenda as usual. As I've said many's a time before, boards.ie is INFESTED with unionists :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Anyway, polls consistently have shown down the years that 80% of people want a United Ireland

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13158.asp

I wouldn't mind Ireland being united if it was in the will of those in the North as well as in the south. I don't think that makes me a Unionist who demands that it be attached to Britain at all costs. It's just not that gigantic of an issue for me.

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

I've read the book and was a bit skeptical of Ed Moloney because he can be a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but it is VERY GOOD, well worth a read. But I think Paisley's attitude to violence and the loyalists could be summed up as it states in the book " We're with you so long as you don't get caught"

yeah i know. in fairness to Mr Moloney, he did not have the co-operation from any member of the family so he could not put truths and myths to bed. pitty, because whether we liked it or not this irish man (ooooooohhh some wont be too happy - for those offended i am just being silly and mean no offence) has a story to tell, and the sooner a full, frank, honest and accurate account of paisley is made the better it would be for all to get a real understanding of people like him.

dlofnep

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't mind Ireland being united if it was in the will of those in the North as well as in the south. I don't think that makes me a Unionist who demands that it be attached to Britain at all costs. It's just not that gigantic of an issue for me.

That's fair enough Jakkass.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

I've read the book and was a bit skeptical of Ed Moloney because he can be a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but it is VERY GOOD, well worth a read. But I think Paisley's attitude to violence and the loyalists could be summed up as it states in the book " We're with you so long as you don't get caught"

isn't that a bit like the IRA Army council and their classic phrase "Unsanctioned" when they talk about the murder of Gards?

zuroph

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

LMAO

Well we've all seen how britains 500 year "empire" is in fact an object lesson how NOT to run an empire... and should apologise for all the silliness it has caused in trying to rule countries all over the world, and have had to been fought out of every where they go

every guerilla army thay have faced has defeated them ... from the zulu's to the boys in the taliban who are sending you's all home in boxes

GOD SHAGGED THE QUEEN

Where are you from King?

what a pathetic attempt to elicit a reaction from the people who dont agree with your views. there was a decent debate taking place here, and your stupid ignorant comments are trying to destroy that. **** your cause, I'm glad you'll never live to see it realised, you dont speak for us.

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

isn't that a bit like the IRA Army council and their classic phrase "Unsanctioned" when they talk about the murder of Gards?

according to the green book, the ira were not sanctioned to shoot members of the police of the free state / south for quiete some time. THey have that in writing that such action is not allowed. i think this was brought in in the 1970's - 1980's (unfortunately 3-5 gardai were killed during this time by members of militant force.)

ah well at least for now, touch wood, this crack is over with

Fratton Fred

zuroph wrote: »

Where are you from King?

what a pathetic attempt to elicit a reaction from the people who dont agree with your views. there was a decent debate taking place here, and your stupid ignorant comments are trying to destroy that. **** your cause, I'm glad you'll never live to see it realised, you dont speak for us.

well said.

I'm all for Irish unity as and when the time is right (which I think is a fair bit away at the moment, but light years closer than it was ten years ago) but when i read posts like that by the "King", i just think "Whatever it is this guy wants, I don't want him to have it".

fligedlyflick

Stev_o wrote: »

Do enlighten us to how the unification of NI to the Republic could be in anyway financially viable.

it's all about money with you lot down there in middle class eastern ireland

chopperbyrne

Fratton Fred wrote: »

well said.

I'm all for Irish unity as and when the time is right (which I think is a fair bit away at the moment, but light years closer than it was ten years ago) but when i read posts like that by the "King", i just think "Whatever it is this guy wants, I don't want him to have it".

Light years measure distance, not time.

Agree with what you say though.

walrusgumble

if we take the big issue of the unionist consent for granted for one second (ie assume they consented to united ireland)

one thing, if i was from the north, i would feel very very insulted by some people's comments from the south and mainland uk about the north being a drain and economic basket case....... why would the british think that, sure surely ni is part of them as much as yorkshire and wales (maybe bad examples)

surely one is aware of why what was the case. who in their right mind would have invested in the north during the troubles. problem now with some of the politicans up there now is that they are catching up with the basic day to day politics of planning permission, charges, rates etc. it might have being intersting to see people like the late David Irvine and others from working class areas sharing and argeeing with motions from nationalists and republicans and vice versa.

the north have an educated group of people, and the south does not havev complete domination over the irish americans in the west. they have their own three horsemen. its amazing with some people in the south who during the last few years of only coming into money now have this attitude, previously they themselves did not have a pot to p*ss in. you don't see people from the basque or catonla too worried about economic difficulties if they left spain? its amazing how some will get very noise out of joint with the germans and others in the eu attempt to tell this country a few home truths. the north have their know how and would in fact be of great economic success given the right people to drive them, excellent political and security conditions and support.

whatever occurs now, the idea of threating our nationalist people from the north as strangers when they come down here is retarded. more should be done for them to feel that dublin is at least a welcoming place for all.

FlutterinBantam

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Of course not horse you keep up the ill-informed hyperbolic sweeping generalisations and see how many people actually listen to you.

As someone who has grown up in a border community I have a slight gripe about people who talk sh1te about something they actually know nothing about.

So hope you dont mind that either

And I have a slight gripe about people who call facts sweeping generalisations.

It's very easy to spout rhetoric about growing up in a Border Community.

Some people think that bigotry and closeminded thinking is the sole attribute of the other side.

Wake up there lads, throw away the flags and banners and paraphenalia and join us in century 21;)

FlutterinBantam

DoireNod wrote: »

If you form an opinion on a place (or anything) without having been there (or experienced it) it is, at best, an uninformed opinion and in itself, prejudice. Due to this fact, you'll have to just accept that flak you get for expressing such an opinion. Your comment was, as I pointed out, ironically ignorant.

Incorrect sir, informed opinion.

I really don't know where you get the idea that just because a person hasn't lived in an area they can't articulate informed opinion.

I have never been to North Korea but I have a good idea of the conditions there.


Ronan Collins even played your song today "Living in the past"

Rabies

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

LMAO

Well we've all seen how britains 500 year "empire" is in fact an object lesson how NOT to run an empire... and should apologise for all the silliness it has caused in trying to rule countries all over the world, and have had to been fought out of every where they go

every guerilla army thay have faced has defeated them ... from the zulu's to the boys in the taliban who are sending you's all home in boxes

GOD SHAGGED THE QUEEN

Kingofhearts,

If you are able to join an adult discussion please stay out it.
Your comments are childish.

Any more and you won't be able to post in AH for a while.

Try tCN, it may suit you more.

DoireNod

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Incorrect sir, informed opinion.

I really don't know where you get the idea that just because a person hasn't lived in an area they can't articulate informed opinion.

I have never been to North Korea but I have a good idea of the conditions there.

What informs you to make this sweeping generalisation/prejudiced comment/raise this 'fact'(according to you)?:

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I for one don't want those ignorant whankers from the North or anything to do with them.

All they do is whinge forever about "freedom" while milking the Queens shilling and screwing the ROI taxpayer with scams across the border.

Let the fcukers piss off and sing their Bobby sands songs wherever they like as long as I don't have listen to them.

Their national Anthem should be that Jethro Tull hit "Living in the Past"

That's not an informed opinion, that's a prejudiced comment.

FlutterinBantam

DoireNod wrote: »

What informs you to make this sweeping generalisation/prejudiced comment/raise this 'fact'(according to you)?:


That's not an informed opinion, that's a prejudiced comment.

Sorry buddy, it's an honest statement of how I feel in response to OPs opening post.

I really can't figure out how people get so anal about what is right before their faces.

Bigotry and sectarianism cuts both ways and and really who wants that nest of dissidents anywhere next or near them.
Certainly not me

I can do without that hassle to be honest.

I couldn't give a flying fook whether Celtic or Rangers win anything.

I prefer life in the 21st century to be honest;)

Stev_o

fligedlyflick wrote: »

it's all about money with you lot down there in middle class eastern ireland

FF voter are you?


So you would be in favour of this country going completely bankrupt just to get back a piece of land that beyond a bit of a cheer for some people, bears no benefits to the country which we live in?

Jim236

Fracture wrote: »

Lets face it, if the British said tomorrow......"we would like to hand NI back to you" do you think we would say no? I doubt it. The country would go mad, it would be like we won the world cup.

They already offered us the 6 counties back during WWII in exchange for us allowing the British to use our ports, airspace and establish bases here and that we fight alongside British forces in the planned invasion of Germany, and de Valera kindly told them where to stick it.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm posting my opinion pal, and sorry if you don't like it.

To me NI is a can of fcuking worms we do not need, do not want .

Too many neanderthals living in the past,beating the same auld drums, marching the same auld marches, and singing the same auld songs.

Time to grow up lads ,it's 2009:rolleyes:

Thats not an opinion, its ignorance and bigotry of the highest order. I don't know how you can call yourself Irish, theres nothing Irish about scum like you...

Artic Wolf

There will always be trouble in the north, if there were to be a united Ireland the loyalists would come down here and bomb the place to bits. The cost of security with the parades and riots would be billions which we can't afford and would destory us, our government has bankrupt this country without the expenses of the north. I personally believe that the British would love to get rid of the north for the same reasons. I would love to see a united Ireland but not if it means that we have to worry about be blown up while walking down the street or have more tax hikes to fund the expense of it's security.

FlutterinBantam

Jim236 wrote: »

They already offered us the 6 counties back during WWII in exchange for us allowing the British to use our ports, airspace and establish bases here and that we fight alongside British forces in the planned invasion of Germany, and de Valera kindly told them where to stick it.



Thats not an opinion, its ignorance and bigotry of the highest order. I don't know how you can call yourself Irish, theres nothing Irish about scum like you...

Tell me I didn't read this.

Where exactly is my post bigoted.

PrivateEye

To be honest, I don't see the difference in 26 badly run counties and 32 badly run counties, bar an inevitably bloody civil war.

The republican movement is not in a position to appeal to even a half decent minority of Protestant workers, never mind a majority. I oppose the presence of the British state in Ireland, but its not as simple as 'GERRR OUT OF HAR!'

Mr Benevolent

OP you need to define 'united'. Are you talking about murdering lots of people until the governments give in (hasn't worked so far)? Or do you mean a union created out of economic necessity in both the country's interests? Personally if I lived in NI I wouldn't vote to become part of the political and economic shambles that the republic is. In fact I'd be embarrassed by the notion.