Unionists in the Republic?

Monumental thread resurrection.

HoggyRS

071railfan wrote: »

I'm a Unionist and I live firmly in the south. I myself am not religious athiest) but am of a catholic background.

As regards comment of the jist that "we don't deserve to run ourselves....etc etc" well thats bollox for sure.
However I also find the comments of one poster suggesting that not a single unionist would be left in the 32 to be highly offensive and I wager that if the same were said re black people or muslims it would not be acceptable. So i also think that is nonsense.

I am Irish as anyone here but I find the extent of the pro republican bile that is considered acceptable in ireland to be disgraceful. I fully agree with Lordstuch that rebel songs should not be allowed in pubs as they promote hatred and violence. Same can be said of loyalist "famine song" type stuff. Again, if it were songs promoting hatred of blacks or polish, there would be outrage but this stuff still seems to wash. I think it needs to be revisited.

I realise that rejoiing the UK is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future but among the benefits it would bring are:
- stable currency again,
- closer business and cultural relationships.
- as part of the UK, we (GB & Ire) would have greater clout on the global stage
- we'd retain the Dail for domestic affairs just as the Welsh Sened and Scotch parliament
- and for readers of the Walter Mitty Forum, we probably get some military improvements like maybe a small RAF station. Some of the lads over there have a hard-on for military aircraft for some reason!!!

To those who have said that we woudl recind our voting rights - your wrong, wrong, wrong. How would that be the case? We would still elect a home rule type parliament (call it the Dail if you so wish, just as the welsh call theirs the Sened), and would return MPs to westminster. (To have a level playing field I would also think England should have a national parliament since everyone else does, but thats another days arguement). Either that or a unitary state as existed pre 1922.

In addition, I just don;t understand the opinion of some that they'd accept a Federal British Isles republic but not a monarcchy. What is some peoples preoccupation with being anti-monarchy? Sometimes I find such opinions a bit "what have the Romans ever done for us". I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with monarchy .

I also reject the arguemnt that we are culturally distinct form the British - I couldn't disagree more. We share a common first language, sports, media and to be honest most things are common to both. Secondly there is no such thing as a homogenous "British culture" - the differences between Irish and British culure are no greater than differences between cultures within the Island of Britain itself, i.e. english v welsh v scottish v cornish.....etc.
If one considered Ireland as part of the Britsh isles, well then in a way Irish culture could be considered British in a way. More broadly we could be considered as all sharing a Britsih Isles Culture with regional variations and regions specific cultures. Thats how I like to think of it anyway.

I read earlier on this that some suggested that "unionists would persecute nationalist catholics" or whatever, well to that I say that you obviously haven't read anything about the persecution, which today would more or less be regarded as ethnic cleanseing, that took place in parts of Cork in the 1920s - not surprising since the "history" syllabus in Irish schools conveniently ignores anthing that that DeValeara would not approve of. Impartial me arse - it as biased as it gets. Even in primary schools, I remember my head master was a pure RA head - he would not allow soccer to be played in at play time - had to be Gaelic Football. WFT like and that was up to 1999.

So yeah I'm a unionist.

.

I like how you compared any republican song to being the same as the famine song or anything discriminatory towards blacks or polish. Maybe you should listen to some republican songs? Republicanism is in no way comparable to racist and supremacist ideologies such as loyalism.

I don't think your point of view is that uncommon. West brits are everywhere these days, only expected to see more unionist popping up.

071railfan

What is the distinction between them? Do both genres not promote hatred, violence and bigotry amongst their repective factions? They do, even down to the cover art as shown below. Are you telling me that the the below cover art does not promote violence?



Many, (but not all i admit) songs of this ilk, whether pro republican or pro union or pro whatever, amount to nothing more that hate speech and should be treated as such.

Republicanism is in no way comparable to racist and supremacist ideologies such as loyalism

Firstly, loyalist =/= unionist. Republicanism is racist. How can you argue otherwise. So people being killed becasue they were protestant is not racist/sectarian? There are even people on this very thread who claimed that "

if [they] had their way, there would not be a single unionist left in the 32"

. How is that not sectarian bile. If I were a mod I would take a very dim view of such statements as they more or less are threats of violence (***not a dig at mods in any way, just an observation**).
However, since it is still there, it would appear that such statements agaisnt the unionist community are acceptable. Again, if the same were said about blacks or muslims there would be an instant ban handed out. It is offensive to unionists, and I find it offensive and intimidating tbh.

Mod: Re-reg banned

HoggyRS

071railfan wrote: »

What is the distinction between them? Do both genres not promote hatred, violence and bigotry amongst their repective factions? They do, even down to the cover art as shown below. Are you telling me that the the below cover art does not promote violence?



Many, (but not all i admit) songs of this ilk, whether pro republican or pro union or pro whatever, amount to nothing more that hate speech and should be treated as such.

No they don't. Republicans don't promote bigotry or sectarianism, that is purely the m.o of loyalists and unionists. There are numerous cases of unionist politicians making outlandish statements about homosexuals or loyalists attacking foreigners in their areas(I presume it goes without saying what their views on catholics are).

That cd art is historical. Theres a statue of a British Army soldier that I walk past everyday in Cork. The statue is holding a rifle, it does not drive me to violence nor do I feel it promotes violence.

Songs about freedom and a new Ireland are not hate speech. Songs about being up to your knees in fenian blood are.

AEDIC

HoggyRS wrote: »

West brits are everywhere these days, only expected to see more unionist popping up.

Yes they are..... all along the West coast of Britain. West Brit has become a derogatory term bandied about as an insult to certain people that have different opinions from certain others. It reeks of regression and not progression and tbh is a bit 'schoolyard' and pathetic.

sureitsgrand

AEDIC wrote: »

Yes they are..... all along the West coast of Britain. West Brit has become a derogatory term bandied about as an insult to certain people that have different opinions from certain others. It reeks of regression and not progression and tbh is a bit 'schoolyard' and pathetic.

Have to agree with this. I am most definitely an Irish Republican but I swear to god when I hear people labelling others on here as West Brits I do the proverbial facedesk. As far as I'm concerned if you use that term you've already lost the argument.

Well those who use the term are usually of lower intelligence.

HoggyRS

AEDIC wrote: »

Yes they are..... all along the West coast of Britain. West Brit has become a derogatory term bandied about as an insult to certain people that have different opinions from certain others. It reeks of regression and not progression and tbh is a bit 'schoolyard' and pathetic.

I think its a grand old term to describe a certain section of Irish society. I won'r be stopping using it when an appropriate anyways.

HoggyRS

edit: double post

sureitsgrand

HoggyRS wrote: »

I think its a grand old term to describe a certain section of Irish society. I won'r be stopping using it when an appropriate anyways.

Would you admit that you are using it in a derogatory manner in order to insult/get a rise out of people though?

If you are it's not a very republican thing to do.

Madam

John Doe1 wrote: »

The laggan is predominantly protestant:)

As is the Finn Valley:rolleyes:

HoggyRS

sureitsgrand wrote: »

Would you admit that you are using it in a derogatory manner in order to insult/get a rise out of people though?

If you are it's not a very republican thing to do.

Never in my life have I heard a republican get their knickers in a twist about the use of the phrase West Brits. I never said it was derogatory(I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread as one for one thing), I don't think being called a republican(a term used to describe a certain group of people) as being derogatory. Its the same thing really. I'm using it to describe all the wannabe Conor Cruise O'Briens about the place these days.

You might be a bit too easily offended.

sureitsgrand

HoggyRS wrote: »

Never in my life have I heard a republican get their knickers in a twist about the use of the phrase West Brits. I never said it was derogatory(I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread as one for one thing), I don't think being called a republican(a term used to describe a certain group of people) as being derogatory. Its the same thing really. I'm using it to describe all the wannabe Conor Cruise O'Briens about the place these days.

You might be a bit too easily offended.

So now you're trying to insult me and question my republicanism?

Bloody heck.

And it's really not the same thing as the label Republican at all, at all. You know it isn't. It's used in a sneering, derogatory fashion: "Them there south Dublin West Brits, turncoats the lot of them."

It's used in a way that intends to question a person's loyalty and patriotism in a demeaning fashion.

I often wonder if some Republicans actually want a UI, and whether they understand that it would involve sharing an island and a single government with people who have pretty serious disagreements with them. If they can't rise above cheap point scoring and name-calling what hope is there for that.

Luckily, I know a lot of Republicans who don't resort to that sort of carry on though. The vast majority of Irish people actually.

Rawhead

I think the term "west brit" is fairly well recognised as a term describing people who largely still subscribe to the notion that the republic should still be part of the crown. These folks mainly belong to societies and clubs that retain the term "royal" in the title, they mostly dwell in the south county Dublin area (although Cork would have a good quota also) and they are mostly well educated so they know better than the peasantry.
I think it is fairly obvious that we wouldn't have a decent road, railway line,bridge, building, university or hospital if the British hadn't built them before we asked them to leave. All that being said I'm glad both my grandfathers had the courage to pick up a rifle and encourage them on their way.
For all the good work they did for our infrastructure we are still infinitely better off without them. Kevin Myres might like to write gushing reports about how such and such an officer was a proud Irishman who fought valiantly in Ypres or Flanders but the British always have and always will view us as the thick paddies.

Border-Rat

minidazzler wrote: »

I think we should be, but I'm not a unionist, I just think they would do a better job than the people we elect because Irish people are incapable of electing good officials. We shouldn't be trusted with a vote.

AH thread in self-loathing first reply shocker.

wendell borton

minidazzler wrote: »

I think we should be, but I'm not a unionist, I just think they would do a better job than the people we elect because Irish people are incapable of electing good officials. We shouldn't be trusted with a vote.

The same crowd would still be elected only they would be siting in westminster instead of leinster house.

Cú Giobach

Rawhead wrote: »

I think it is fairly obvious that we wouldn't have a decent road, railway line,bridge, building, university or hospital if the British hadn't built them before we asked them to leave. All that being said I'm glad both my grandfathers had the courage to pick up a rifle and encourage them on their way..

Lots of countries have decent roads, railway lines, buildings etc.... that were never under British rule, they don't hold a monopoly on the construction of such things, why should we have been any different??

If we had been left alone there is no reason we wouldn't have built all the above probably in a different and unique style, just because someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to let them remodel your house doesn't mean you are incapable of doing it yourself. I'm sure your Grandfathers would be horrified to hear their Grandchild speaking in such a way.

old hippy

I remember seeing a parade in Chester many years ago & was surprised to see a banner being carried by the Dublin & Wicklow Orange Lodges. Being Northern England there was no aggro but it was unexpected all the same...

Cú Giobach

old hippy wrote: »

I remember seeing a parade in Chester many years ago & was surprised to see a banner being carried by the Dublin & Wicklow Orange Lodges. Being Northern England there was no aggro but it was unexpected all the same...

Now if it had said The West Kerry Orange Lodge that would be a surprise, but Dublin and Wicklow?? Nah.

Stereomaniac

Dublin I can understand a little. Wicklow, why do you seem unsurprised? I know there's Protestants....

old hippy

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Dublin I can understand a little. Wicklow, why do you seem unsurprised? I know there's Protestants....

Indeed there are - not all unionist, of course

golden lane

sensibleken wrote: »

have you seen the state of UK politics?

yes, but i don't see much of a problem......whatever mp's say or do...the country goes on and on......

i have listened to all the crap for fifty years.....people are better off over that period......so no problem...

Cú Giobach

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Dublin I can understand a little. Wicklow, why do you seem unsurprised? I know there's Protestants....

Anywhere east of Macroom really.

Davidius

I didn't realise 'West Brit' was so hated. I think it's a perfectly good (usually playful) insult for Irish anglophiles. I've always taken it to mean somebody with a ridiculous romantic view of the UK, and who often has a very skewed notion about the backwardness of Irish culture.

ejmaztec

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Lots of countries have decent roads, railway lines, buildings etc.... that were never under British rule, they don't hold a monopoly on the construction of such things, why should we have been any different??

If we had been left alone there is no reason we wouldn't have built all the above probably in a different and unique style, just because someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to let them remodel your house doesn't mean you are incapable of doing it yourself. I'm sure your Grandfathers would be horrified to hear their Grandchild speaking in such a way.

I think many of the roads in Ireland were sh1t until the EU came along, and that was the first time that a lot of the minor roads saw any tarmac.

Yamanoto

Rawhead wrote: »

I think the term "west brit" is fairly well recognised as a term describing people who largely still subscribe to the notion that the republic should still be part of the crown.

Sorry, I just don't buy that.

You could count on one hand the number of posters who argue for a return to the United Kingdom. Broadening it out to wider society, the numbers are equally miniscule.

And yet the 'West Brit' slur is flung about with an all too depressing regularity in myriad contexts when the subject matter calls for debate and discussion on matters Anglo-Irish.

It's lowest common denominator stuff tbh.

Cú Giobach

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think many of the roads in Ireland were sh1t until the EU came along, and that was the first time that a lot of the minor roads saw any tarmac.

So?
This would be a very different place, you cannot base what we could have achieved and the country we could have today if the British had never been here, by looking at the country as it was after they left.
It's something we will never know.

As I said, just because someone points a gun to your head and insists that they do something does not mean you are incapable of doing it yourself.

HoggyRS

sureitsgrand wrote: »

So now you're trying to insult me and question my republicanism?

Bloody heck.

And it's really not the same thing as the label Republican at all, at all. You know it isn't. It's used in a sneering, derogatory fashion: "Them there south Dublin West Brits, turncoats the lot of them."

It's used in a way that intends to question a person's loyalty and patriotism in a demeaning fashion.

I often wonder if some Republicans actually want a UI, and whether they understand that it would involve sharing an island and a single government with people who have pretty serious disagreements with them. If they can't rise above cheap point scoring and name-calling what hope is there for that.

Luckily, I know a lot of Republicans who don't resort to that sort of carry on though. The vast majority of Irish people actually.

I never questioned your republicanism. Your some drama queen, boy. I merely claimed I was surprised to see a republican saying what you were saying, I was honestly shocked. I never assumed you weren't a republican, though with the way your twisting my posts i'm starting to question your position.

So do you claim these people, the(now cover your ears) West Brits, don't exist? Cause they do, they are extremely prominent, they are the vast majority of the political establishment. It doesn't matter an iota what you call them but i'll stick with West Brit as it is the most obvious to me. I don't use it to describe south dubliners as a whole or whatever you think, as I said i'm talking about Conor Cruise O'Brien, Ruth Dudley Edwards, too many TD's to mention, all the folks getting emotional when the queen visited.

Sorry if this doesn't mix well with your flowers in the air kumbaya republicanism. I realise we will have to all get along one day but I think its best to find common ground rather than be getting upset about nothing phrases.

The vast majority of Irish people aren't republicans, hence I don't let them dictate the phrases I use(unlike you).

AEDIC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I'm sure your Grandfathers would be horrified to hear their Grandchild speaking in such a way.

You have some way of going back in time and being SURE of that do you..... oh really. Another bright spark 'progressionist'?

AEDIC

Davidius wrote: »

I didn't realise 'West Brit' was so hated. I think it's a perfectly good (usually playful) insult for Irish anglophiles. I've always taken it to mean somebody with a ridiculous romantic view of the UK, and who often has a very skewed notion about the backwardness of Irish culture.

Its generally not used that way though.... not everyone that is called a west Brit is an anglophile, in fact most times the people being called it would be far from it, but would have probably slightly more liberal and forward thinking views than some frothing and foaming 'others'. That is when it is generally used as an insult.

AEDIC

HoggyRS wrote: »

all the folks getting emotional when the queen visited.

Sorry if this doesn't mix well with your flowers in the air kumbaya republicanism. I realise we will have to all get along one day but I think its best to find common ground rather than be getting upset about nothing phrases.

The vast majority of Irish people aren't republicans, hence I don't let them dictate the phrases I use(unlike you).

So like Martin McG then.... as I am sure I saw a smile (emotion)

But seriously....you really are one for mixed messages boy... you seem to be confused by a future you dont seem to accept. You think that 'we all have to get along one day' but by the same token are still happy to continue to use a term that is not only geographically moronic, but that some people take as an slur on their 'Irishness'.

'Vast majority of Irish people arent republicans', is that what's upsetting you?

HoggyRS

AEDIC wrote: »

Its generally not used that way though.... not everyone that is called a west Brit is an anglophile, in fact most times the people being called it would be far from it, but would have probably slightly more liberal and forward thinking views than some frothing and foaming 'others'. That is when it is generally used as an insult.

If you think west brits are liberal and forward thinking then we're definitely not thinking of the same people.

AEDIC

HoggyRS wrote: »

If you think west brits are liberal and forward thinking then we're definitely not thinking of the same people.

You need to read the post again.

HoggyRS

AEDIC wrote: »

So like Martin McG then.... as I am sure I saw a smile (emotion)

But seriously....you really are one for mixed messages boy... you seem to be confused by a future you dont seem to accept. You think that 'we all have to get along one day' but by the same token are still happy to continue to use a term that is not only geographically moronic, but that some people take as an slur on their 'Irishness'.

'Vast majority of Irish people arent republicans', is that what's upsetting you?

Yes but I don't think we'll all get along by pandering to self hating Irish people seeking union with Britain. They are a stumbling block to a united Ireland. They are not a cultural or ethnic group, they are a political persuasion who stand for everything I don't. I do not plan to base my politics or language around their views.

The vast majority comment was a reference to something in the quoted post from our easily offended republican friend on the previous page.

Rawhead

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Lots of countries have decent roads, railway lines, buildings etc.... that were never under British rule, they don't hold a monopoly on the construction of such things, why should we have been any different??

If we had been left alone there is no reason we wouldn't have built all the above probably in a different and unique style, just because someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to let them remodel your house doesn't mean you are incapable of doing it yourself. I'm sure your Grandfathers would be horrified to hear their Grandchild speaking in such a way.

We where still in the middle of rural electrification when the USA was putting men on the fcuking moon and you think that we would be an industrial powerhouse left to our own devices.

As for my grandfathers being horrified at me, they would be a lot more horrified if I was a dumb, ignorant revisionist who believes that the brits held this country back and not the ignorant, insular clowns who take Irish names and spout socialist sh1te.

Cú Giobach

Rawhead wrote: »

We where still in the middle of rural electrification when the USA was putting men on the fcuking moon and you think that we would be an industrial powerhouse left to our own devices.

To repeat a previous post.
This would be a very different place, you cannot base what we could have achieved and the country we could have today if the British had never been here by looking at the country as it was after they left.
Pretty simple logic (for an adult that is, some very young children might have difficulty with it).

As for my grandfathers being horrified at me, they would be a lot more horrified if I was a dumb, ignorant revisionist who believes that the brits held this country back and not the ignorant, insular clowns who take Irish names and spout socialist sh1te.

Your'e not very good at having an adult discussion are you, name calling like a 4 year old and you obviously don't even understand what the words socialist or revisionist mean.

You're not even worth reporting kiddo.

Rawhead

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To repeat a previous post.
This would be a very different place, you cannot base what we could have achieved and the country we could have today if the British had never been here by looking at the country as it was after they left.
Pretty simple logic (for an adult that is, some very young children might have difficulty with it).


Your'e not very good at having an adult discussion are you, name calling like a 4 year old and you obviously don't even understand what the word socialist means.

You're not even worth reporting kiddo.

What did we achieve in between 1922 and the 1990's?

sureitsgrand

HoggyRS wrote: »

I never questioned your republicanism. Your some drama queen, boy. I merely claimed I was surprised to see a republican saying what you were saying, I was honestly shocked. I never assumed you weren't a republican, though with the way your twisting my posts i'm starting to question your position.

So do you claim these people, the(now cover your ears) West Brits, don't exist? Cause they do, they are extremely prominent, they are the vast majority of the political establishment. It doesn't matter an iota what you call them but i'll stick with West Brit as it is the most obvious to me. I don't use it to describe south dubliners as a whole or whatever you think, as I said i'm talking about Conor Cruise O'Brien, Ruth Dudley Edwards, too many TD's to mention, all the folks getting emotional when the queen visited.

Sorry if this doesn't mix well with your flowers in the air kumbaya republicanism. I realise we will have to all get along one day but I think its best to find common ground rather than be getting upset about nothing phrases.

The vast majority of Irish people aren't republicans, hence I don't let them dictate the phrases I use(unlike you).

It's hard to reply to a post like this. Bandying about words like "drama queen", "kum by ah etc." and characterising me as some lily-livered apologist who gets "dictated" to.

Get off you're feckin' barstool.

Anyway.

I'll take as misinterpreted that you were questioning my republicanism then. Apologies. But you'll have to admit your tone in both this post quoted and previous is condescending and snide. Actually, you probably won't, but most on here will. Can you honestly not have a level-headed conversation with someone who actually probably agrees with 95% of what you believe in?

Ah, so you're one of those Republicans. The type who thinks you have to be SF voter, Orange-bashing, Queen-hating mouthpiece. You're right, the vast majority of Irish people aren't one of those Republicans. They're the type that believe that a peaceful re-integration of the six is possible and desirable within 50 years if:

1) We sort this economic morass out.
2) We continue along the road of reconciliation.
3)The Irish government (whatever Irish government) asserts more strongly its "firm will" to achieve a UI.
4) Stormont and the Dáil take steps to work more closely together, eventually (and gradually) moving towards a sort of federal set up.
5) Most importantly, people understand that any UI is and has to include the other set of lads. And some of that **** is gonna be uncomfortable.

And we all have to get the fook along.

Anyway. I'm off for a game cricket with my chums. Huzzah and so forth.

Cú Giobach

Rawhead wrote: »

What did we achieve in between 1922 and the 1990's?

Tell you what just for the laugh try responding to my point, go on you can do it if you try, I have faith in you.

I'll even repeat it for you.
"This would be a very different place, you cannot base what we could have achieved and the country we could have today if the British had never been here by looking at the country as it was after they left."

Rawhead

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Tell you what just for the laugh try responding to my point, go on you can do it if you try, I have faith in you.

I'll even repeat it for you.
"This would be a very different place, you cannot base what we could have achieved and the country we could have today if the British had never been here by looking at the country as it was after they left."

Your right, but if what we have managed to achieve in the last 90 years is any indication, then I don't think the brits need feel to guilty about stunting our growth or development.

Chuck Stone

Useful idiots might be a more accurate term than than West Brits. Like the useful idiots in Cork who thought that inviting the sectarian Orange Order down was a good idea. Or the useful idiots who okayed the 'Love Ulster' hate parade.

the mer

i agree both sides have bad representitives as seen here ( derogatory name calling ) but the discussion should we be in the union we could be better off but i wouldnt like to see what our fore fathers fought and died for , our irish independance be given away like that and our education system is quite biasist towards the republican side ( not mentioning horrible acts committed by the republicans after the war but that happens in every country some form of censorship
i was wondering was 071railfan banned and if he was why?

Cú Giobach

Rawhead wrote: »

Your right, but if what we have managed to achieve in the last 90 years is any indication, then I don't think the brits need feel to guilty about stunting our growth or development.

So the dumb, ignorant revisionist, insular clown is right. Guess you can't beat simple common sense.

And if you think we were still living in the conditions our grandparents were in the 1920's by 1990 all I can say is :eek:
Do you have any idea what you are actually on about?? Have you ever read a book, seen a photo, talked to an older person or learned in school what life was like here in 1922?? I guess not. You should though it's really fascinating, and knowing a bit about history is great for understanding why the world is the way it is today.

Duggys Housemate

Entertaining thread. What's missing from most of the unionist responses is the fact that Ireland is still richer per capita than the UK.

What's that you say, because of the multinationals. Partially, old bean; however the multinationals are here because of Irish independence, that is to say London is not very good at distributing the wealth, or industry, within Britain, or even England. Ask those up north. London left the north rot, and would have left Dublin rot too. There would be no IDA, Google et. al would be in London. They don't even try to get industry for Liverpool or the North West - an area poorer than anywhere in Ireland.

Our tourism industry would be second fiddle too, our agricultural sector left to rot, state capital and infrastructure neglected. Would the UK have built Ardnacrusha, or completed rural electrification, or built Dublin airport, or created a seperate state airline for Ireland? No. London would only care about any infrastructure for Ireland if Irish MPs held the balance of power.

The other category error unionists make is seeing England as efficient, it isn't.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

We where still in the middle of rural electrification when the USA was putting men on the fcuking moon and you think that we would be an industrial powerhouse left to our own devices.

As for my grandfathers being horrified at me, they would be a lot more horrified if I was a dumb, ignorant revisionist who believes that the brits held this country back and not the ignorant, insular clowns who take Irish names and spout socialist sh1te.

My, we're angry.

Rawhead

What did we achieve in the period between independence and joining Europe?

We survived because ten of thousands emigrated every year and thus relieved the burden on the country. We are two generations removed from a peasant race. Next time one of the grand cycling tours is on TV, have a look at the fabulous towns and villages across Europe that where built hundreds of years ago, when we lived in mud houses.

I'm glad we got rid of the British and had a chance at governing ourselves, but alas we managed it for only 90 years.

The Assistinator

Madam wrote: »

As is the Finn Valley:rolleyes:

the finn valley is not, one or two towns are borderline but as a whole its mostly cathloc.
sorry just could not let that slide.

the mer

martyo wrote: »

the finn valley is not one or two towns are borderline but as a whole its mostly cathloic.
sorry just could not let that slide.

im sorry but does what majority of religeon live there really matter

The Assistinator

the mer wrote: »

im sorry but does what majority of religeon live there really matter

it matters not to me but i could not sit reading this thread and let someone write something that is not true just for arguments sake.:mad:

the mer

martyo wrote: »

it matters not to me but i could not sit reading this thread and let someone write something that is not true just for arguments sake.:mad:

sorry i didnt mean to offend just wondering why we still call areas protestant or catholic