N.I catholics gains massively on the protestant population

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

So not only are you demanding that my country assimilate a basket case economy populated by people who refuse point-blank to get on with each other, but my country also has to change its political system to accommodate those people and their mutual paranoia?

As if I needed yet another reason to vote against a united Ireland, but there it is.

Yes, a new republic is necessary. The political system in the south has failed too, for different reasons.
This offers a chance to fundementally change the way we are governed. A proper republic.

Ozymandius2011

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Considering previous polls giving similar numbers I'm not sure why this should be such a massive shock.

The Catholic vote for a UI has been in flux for several years. Support in NI for a UI in the GFA exit poll I remember on Prime Time was 25%.

COYW

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, a new republic is necessary. The political system in the south has failed too, for different reasons.
This offers a chance to fundementally change the way we are governed. A proper republic.

But the people don't want it .... You have to respect their wishes. We need to sort our own problems ourselves.

Happyman42

COYW wrote: »

But the people don't want it .... You have to respect their wishes. We need to sort our own problems ourselves.

It's an opinion poll, not the result of a referendum :rolleyes: I wouldn't have expected the high amount of SF voters saying that they didn't want a UI but I would have guessed the rest considering the current mood.
Still doesn't make a case for supressing a debate and a vote though.

We'll see if Arlene et al are brave enough now to call 'the bluff'

Happyman42

COYW wrote: »

our own problems ourselves.

According to Awec, you don't have any, sure it's a great place, everyone loves everyone and there's loads of mullah floating about.

gurramok

awec wrote: »

Because the overall figure doesn't matter, it's how much is owed per head.

Its not 1.7 trillion euro, equivalent to over 390,000 euro per head. You(and BBC who is at fault) are including IFSC debts.

Real figure is here http://www.debtclock.ie/ , http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php , 31k per head.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The mess we have made of our economy, the Catholic abuse scandals, soft judges etc. hasn't exactly helped matters I suspect where the Catholic vote is concerned. I don't see a UI in my lifetime (I am 33). I would vote for it though. I am a Southerner.

The Catholic population(as well as Protestant) in NI are the most religious on the island and right wing on social issues. Religious scandals has not dented the Catholic faithful much up there.

woodoo

oscarBravo wrote: »

So not only are you demanding that my country assimilate a basket case economy populated by people who refuse point-blank to get on with each other, but my country also has to change its political system to accommodate those people and their mutual paranoia?

As if I needed yet another reason to vote against a united Ireland, but there it is.

That would be a plus for me. Radical change of governance.

ardmacha

The UK owes Ireland more than Ireland owes the UK, but the UK is in a far better position to pay it's debts if needs be. The underlying issue is that Ireland can't.

You are contradicting yourself here. If the debts owed to Ireland are pretty safe then that makes the gross debt figure even more irrelevant.


There is a lot of waffle generally on this thread. Gerry Kelly should realise that his voters voted him to deliver a United Ireland, but his party have done feck all about it. SF cannot just ignore economics, which is now the important issue. There are 20% of the population who will change their vote if the economic end of things is sorted and this is not mainly about sorting the Republic, but sorting the economic basket case that is NI.

Belfast City: 60%
Greater Belfast: 77%
Down: 66%
Armagh: 64%
Tyrone + Fermanagh: 53%
Derry: 55%
Antrim: 84%

The above illustrates how much traditional unionism is now in a majority only in a geographically confined area.

oscarBravo

woodoo wrote: »

That would be a plus for me. Radical change of governance.

If we need a radical change of governance, we should do it because it's needed and because the people of the republic want that change, not to accommodate the inclusion of part of another country into our own.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

If we need a radical change of governance, we should do it because it's needed

If you are watching Vinny you will see how much it is needed>

and because the people of the republic want that change, not to accommodate the inclusion of part of another country into our own.

You are just digging your heels in now, we would have the chance to permanently put this island at peace...that is a prize, not a burden.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you are watching Vinny you will see how much it is needed>

So why wait until a majority want a united Ireland? Why not do it anyway?

You are just digging your heels in now, we would have the chance to permanently put this island at peace...that is a prize, not a burden.

I reject the premise that the outcome desired by one of the hostile factions in an ongoing conflict is an automatic path to peace.

If peace is what you want, make peace with your neighbours. If, as I suspect, a united Ireland is more important to you than a peaceful one, you'll find me implacably opposed. If you want me and others like me to support allowing Northern Ireland to become a part of my country, sort the place out first, and you'll find us a lot more welcoming.

guinnessdrinker

oscarBravo wrote: »

So not only are you demanding that my country assimilate a basket case economy populated by people who refuse point-blank to get on with each other, but my country also has to change its political system to accommodate those people and their mutual paranoia?

As if I needed yet another reason to vote against a united Ireland, but there it is.

Nice generalisation. The vast majority of population in NI do indeed get on with each other in daily life, this fact seems to annoy so many people, you included I presume.

People from Unionist and Nationalist backgrounds interact peacefully with each other every day of the year at work, in education and through sport even.

A lot of people just like to focus on the negatives unfortunately. Focus on the smaller extreme elements if it makes you feel better though but please don't generalise.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

If peace is what you want, make peace with your neighbours. If, as I suspect, a united Ireland is more important to you than a peaceful one, you'll find me implacably opposed. If you want me and others like me to support allowing Northern Ireland to become a part of my country, sort the place out first, and you'll find us a lot more welcoming.

Corralling the problem in one corner of the island hasn't worked, how many have to die to make that clear to you?

ardmacha

If you want me and others like me to support allowing Northern Ireland to become a part of my country,

Northern Ireland is already part of the country, what is proposed is an adjustment of the State to include the entire nation.

In any case I'm not sure we want you to support this project, as this would suggest that it had gone wrong. The support of regular positive Irish people will suffice.

oscarBravo

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

The vast majority of population in NI do indeed get on with each other in daily life, this fact seems to annoy so many people, you included I presume.

You presume wrongly. Which tends to happen when you presume.

People from Unionist and Nationalist backgrounds interact peacefully with each other every day of the year at work, in education and through sport even.

A lot of people just like to focus on the negatives unfortunately. Focus on the smaller extreme elements if it makes you feel better though but please don't generalise.

It's not really me focusing on the negatives and troublesome minorities; it's those who are demanding a united Ireland as the only acceptable price for peace. Case in point:

Happyman42 wrote: »

Corralling the problem in one corner of the island hasn't worked, how many have to die to make that clear to you?

Once again, I reject the premise that distributing the problem over the rest of the island will automatically solve it. I've never subscribed to that sort of magical thinking, and I'm not about to start now.

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

Northern Ireland is already part of the country, what is proposed is an adjustment of the State to include the entire nation.

Ah, three words that you can juggle in a clever little salad of cherry-picked definitions.

The country I live in is Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, and it stops at the border. Redefining the word "country" to mean "the extent of the land area I wish the state covered" is a transparent rhetorical trick that we overwhelmingly rejected fifteen odd years ago.

In any case I'm not sure we want you to support this project, as this would suggest that it had gone wrong. The support of regular positive Irish people will suffice.

Dismissing people who disagree with you as "negative" is a fairly reliable way of failing to persuade them to your point of view.

When the time comes to ask the question for real, and people start asking themselves whether they really want entrenched tribalism to become entirely our problem, you may find that the number of "negative" people that you would prefer not to support your project comes as an unpleasant surprise.

But that's OK, as you only want the support of people who already see things your way.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Once again, I reject the premise that distributing the problem over the rest of the island will automatically solve it. I've never subscribed to that sort of magical thinking, and I'm not about to start now.

When your community suffers, maybe you'll change your thinking and look for a solution that might work.
The south tried to walk away from the problem before, we all know how that turned out.

ardmacha

The country I live in is Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, and it stops at the border. Redefining the word "country" to mean "the extent of the land area I wish the state covered" is a transparent rhetorical trick that we overwhelmingly rejected fifteen odd years ago.

Did we really? Which document or statement 15 years ago redefined the country?
Ireland was a country when the British occupied all of it, albeit not an independent one, it remains a country when the British have only part of it and will still be country when they have not any of it.

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, three words that you can juggle in a clever little salad of cherry-picked definitions.

The country I live in is Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, and it stops at the border. Redefining the word "country" to mean "the extent of the land area I wish the state covered" is a transparent rhetorical trick that we overwhelmingly rejected fifteen odd years ago. Dismissing people who disagree with you as "negative" is a fairly reliable way of failing to persuade them to your point of view.

When the time comes to ask the question for real, and people start asking themselves whether they really want entrenched tribalism to become entirely our problem, you may find that the number of "negative" people that you would prefer not to support your project comes as an unpleasant surprise.

But that's OK, as you only want the support of people who already see things your way.

We never agreed that we were voting for permanent partition in 1998 OscarBravo, speaking as someone who voted yes.

Also I believe from anecdotal evidence e.g. popularity of GAA in North, that a lot of partitionist Northern Catholics nonetheless define "Ireland" as their country just as pre-1989 partitionist Germans would have done.

guinnessdrinker

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not really me focusing on the negatives and troublesome minorities; it's those who are demanding a united Ireland as the only acceptable price for peace.

Maybe I took you up wrong then but it seemed to me you were the one focusing on the negativities. i.e. when you refer to people refusing point blank to get on with each other.

Nobody is claiming that we are living in a utopia but the reality is that the vast majority of people do get on with each other.

Maybe you may have more in common with those people demanding a united Ireland than you think?

Happyman42

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Maybe I took you up wrong then but it seemed to me you were the one focusing on the negativities. i.e. when you refer to people refusing point blank to get on with each other.

Nobody is claiming that we are living in a utopia but the reality is that the vast majority of people do get on with each other.

Maybe you may have more in common with those people demanding a united Ireland than you think?

He is focussing on the negative because that is the de facto position of a partitionist. They have no solutions, just a clinging onto the little comforts that they have managed to eke out of the tragedy and to hell with anybody else.
Of course the vast majority get on with each other, I see it every day of the week, that is why both sides have nothing to fear in a peaceful negotiation of our futures.
Let the moderates decide the future, not the extremists and certainly not head in the sand partitionists.

junder

What's to negotiate. A clear majorty of the population of northern Ireland are in favour of maintaining the union, seems the matter is already resolved. I want an Aston Martin db7 it's possible but highly unlikely that I will ever own one, either way I see no point in trying to negotiate a price right now, when I have the money then I will negotiate for the car

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

A clear majorty of the population of northern Ireland are in favour of maintaining the union,

How do you know this?

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What I've written is the polar opposite to the old NI. PUL contentment was predicated on CNR disenfranchisement in the bad old days. Remember the brutal state backed suppression of civil rights (not UI) activism? Of course you do.



What?

I mean you don't have to be protestent to be a unionist. Seemingly the majority of catholics are now unionists. Which is handy if they are going to be the majority soon.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

populated by people who refuse point-blank to get on with each other

Did you miss the whole GFA? Were you asleep for that bit? Would you sit down with someone who was your former mortal enemy? You wear your prejudice with such pride.

Ozymandius2011

junder wrote: »

What's to negotiate. A clear majorty of the population of northern Ireland are in favour of maintaining the union, seems the matter is already resolved. I want an Aston Martin db7 it's possible but highly unlikely that I will ever own one, either way I see no point in trying to negotiate a price right now, when I have the money then I will negotiate for the car

Nothing is set in stone in politics. If the GFA were to unravel then everything is up in the air again. The Catholic population is prepared to live with the current arrangement - which includes the GFA. Were there to be a return to the bad old days of discrimination, then they could change their minds. If the Irish economy recovered to the point where a UI became economically feasible, the same thing could happen. The vast majority of White Southerners in the US wanted secession. Now they are the most patriotic of Americans.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Seemingly the majority of catholics are now unionists.

Interesting. Which political party do these Unionists vote for?

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

Did we really? Which document or statement 15 years ago redefined the country?
Ireland was a country when the British occupied all of it, albeit not an independent one, it remains a country when the British have only part of it and will still be country when they have not any of it.

Sure - if you cherry-pick a definition of "country" that happens to neatly dovetail with your beliefs. That's known as "arguing from your conclusion", aka "begging the question".

If you have to carefully define language in ways that are meaningless to people who don't subscribe to your particular worldview, it ought to be an indication that your argument is on shaky ground to start with.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

We never agreed that we were voting for permanent partition in 1998 OscarBravo, speaking as someone who voted yes.

I voted for the GFA as well, and I'm not demanding permanent partition. I'm open to the idea of a united Ireland, but not until a substantial minority of both communities grow up and learn to play nice.

Also I believe from anecdotal evidence e.g. popularity of GAA in North, that a lot of partitionist Northern Catholics nonetheless define "Ireland" as their country just as pre-1989 partitionist Germans would have done.

And a lot of northern unionists define "Britain" as their country, to howls of derision from their opposite numbers who believe they have a monopoly on the definition of "country".

junder

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Nothing is set in stone in politics. If the GFA were to unravel then everything is up in the air again. The Catholic population is prepared to live with the current arrangement - which includes the GFA. Were there to be a return to the bad old days of discrimination, then they could change their minds. If the Irish economy recovered to the point where a UI became economically feasible, the same thing could happen. The vast majority of White Southerners in the US wanted secession. Now they are the most patriotic of Americans.

And if I won the lottery tomorrow i could buy my Aston Martin

Lelantos

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you are watching Vinny you will see how much it is needed>


You are just digging your heels in now, we would have the chance to permanently put this island at peace...that is a prize, not a burden.

You think that if this island becomes a UI we will have peace? Crazy talk! You see how people react when the union jack flag can't be flown, imagine the reaction when its the tricolour flying above their heads!

Reekwind

Lelantos wrote: »

You think that if this island becomes a UI we will have peace? Crazy talk! You see how people react when the union jack flag can't be flown, imagine the reaction when its the tricolour flying above their heads!

And they'll do what? The greatest problem in the North was never the bigotry of Unionist politicians or even the brutality of Loyalist thugs. It was that these were supported by a thoroughly sectarian state apparatus. Without that, as we saw over Christmas, Loyalist rage is just hot air

Happyman42

Lelantos wrote: »

You think that if this island becomes a UI we will have peace? Crazy talk! You see how people react when the union jack flag can't be flown, imagine the reaction when its the tricolour flying above their heads!

I think the opposite, I think the more the extremeists get exposed the more moderate Unionists see that negotiation is where they will achieve results. SF are way ahead of them on that, they have some ground to recover. The power of belligerence is gone, the rioters have seen to that, the Unionist parties know how much they have to recover from an image point of view. It's a cumulative pressure that works in the favour of democracy. There is nothing only regression to be gained from this kind of reaction, that message has been underlined once again in the Unionist camp.
A United Ireland will only come about when it is the pragmatic and progressive thing to do.
There is a way to go on that, but as I said earlier, with the British encouraging this(for their own ends) in the background and further withdrawing supports and with an improving economic outlook in the south (which will come) the need for a debate and formal discussion on all this will become more pressing.
With the impending prospect of SF sharing power in both the North and South it isn't hard to see that a serious look at this will be part of an agreed programme for government. that will be the signal for the likes of America and Europe to weigh in with economic benefits that could see huge growth and stabilisation. Britian and America will know that allowing this island to destabilise again is in nobody's interests.
If you think that Unionists have a sticking point that they won't pass then you haven't been paying attention to how far they have come since the GFA. Same applies to SF and moderate Nationalists, don't let the minor scuffles and protests of a minority fool you that there is a huge militant Unionism waiting in the wings to act, there isn't. The days of the Ulster Covenant are well gone, thankfully.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the opposite, I think the more the extremeists get exposed the more moderate Unionists see that negotiation is where they will achieve results. The power of belligerence is gone, the rioters have seen to that, the Unionist parties know how much they have to recover from an image point of view. It's a cumulative pressure that works in the favour of democracy. There is nothing only regression to be gained from this kind of reaction, that message has been underlined once again in the Unionist camp.
A United Ireland will only come about when it is the pragmatic and progressive thing to do.
There is a way to go on that, but as I said earlier, with the British encouraging this(for their own ends) in the background and further withdrawing supports and with an improving economic outlook in the south (which will come) the need for a debate and formal discussion on all this will become more pressing.
With the impending prospect of SF sharing power in both the North and South it isn't hard to see that a serious look at this will be part of an agreed programme for government. that will be the signal for the likes of America and Europe to weigh in with economic benefits that could see huge growth and stabilisation. Britian and America will know that allowing this island to destabilise again is in nobody's interests.
If you think that Unionists have a sticking point that they won't pass then you haven't been paying attention to how far they have come since the GFA. Same applies to SF and moderate Nationalists, don't let the minor scuffles and protests of a minority fool you that there is a huge militant Unionism waiting in the wings to act, there isn't. The days of the Ulster Covenant are well gone, thankfully.

Hopefully it´s the way you say. At the present your statement is a optimistic one, very optimistic indeed. I´m just half that optimistic, but I see your predictment as for a period of at least one decade.

Thomas_I

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

How did I loose my credibility ?

I do not want to see a united Ireland.

It's you who is grasping at straws, just because the survey is totally against what you hoped would be the case

You´re treating this polls as if its results are queal to a referendum in which all people in NI has voted. That´s not the case and therefore it´s not even the half of the truth in compare to an real hold up referendum on these matters.

I could say something similar: "I don´t want to see the break up of the UK by Scotland voting in favour of its independence because it would lead sooner or later to the disolvement of what is now the UK. What is left of the UK would either re-organise itself within some kind of federation or each part becoming his own national state. If England can´t afford to finance NI by its own (without taxation income from Wales), then they´d rather look after their own concerns and dropp off NI."

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're just really showing your bigotry here. SF are the ones calling for a full debate covering all the issues of reunification. They want people to truly understand what it means and stop blindly voting along tribal lines. If anything, particularly in the north, they're the only ones showing any level of political maturity. DUP and UUP retreated into the gutters over the whole flags things. The SDLP continue to be a non-entity, completely unsure of what or who they are. One minute they try to portray themselves as a middle-ground alternative to SF, next thing theyre trying to "out-green" them. I'm not sure what the future for Alliance is but I would strongly suspect whenever this proposal to move the flag to the cenotaph comes up they'll revert back to their spineless faux-fence-sitting.

Good point there, it almost describes the place where I find myself often in topics about NI and a UI.

Thomas_I

awec wrote: »

The current governments don't need to put cases forward. People live in the current situation, they know the pros and cons of it.

Those seeking change need to put reasons on the table that cause people to step back and think that they will be better off with a change.

I want to know what those that want change think some of those reasons are. It's not a hard question, if you're on here arguing for a vote with the intention of getting a change in status you should be able to say why I should vote yes in said vote (ignoring from the fact that I personally wouldn't vote at all).

Sinn Fein clearly need votes to swing. What are they going to offer. "Hey, all you pro-union people, vote for a UI because...".

That means as well that you wouldn´t "give a damn" on the whole thing at all. So one can assume that you´d be happy with whatever comes out from that vote and if would live in NI with an anti-UI stance and one morning wake up in a UI what would you do, jump into the Sea or move to the UK?

Surely, it´s on SF and their representatives as well as their followers to air their proposals and reasons for why it´d be better to have a UI, but the idea to involve both governments into these debate and researches gives the whole thing a more serious attachment and some considerations about where to find common sense in these matters. Otherwise one would have just the picture drawn by a political party and this isn´t enough.

junder

You don't need to have a referendum to hold a debate. If you want to debate, knock yourself out, debating is free. Although to blunt over the many years I have been a member of this forum, republicans have done a Stirling job of proving to me how unwelcome my community and culture would be in this (dis) united ireland. In some ways it was a mistake joining this site in the first place since because of the attitudes of many republicans, I have found my stance hardening. I know that my culture is not welcome or respected in the Republic of Ireland today, I can see it only getting worse. Even just a quick peruse of this thread gives an indication of what many of you really think about my community, 'knuckle draggers', 'thugs', ' Neanderthals' are just some of the ever so endearing names you call us. The great irony is, and one republicans will never get is that the biggest barrier to a united ireland is republicans themselves

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I haven't dodged anything. You're asking for a one line summation of a massive issue so that you can move the argument away from the issue of unity as a whole onto something small that you can argue against. But it's not a single small issue. i dont have all the answers, I probably have very few of them. That's why I want all the information laid out before me. That's why I want SF, SDLP, DUP, UUP, Brit gov and the southern gov and probably a whole range of outside independent groups showing me how and why reunification would or wouldnt work, what the likely ramifications, benefits and dangers would be and then I can make a decision.
That's how everyone should make the decision. Information, debate, decide. Not a BBC poll ringing you up out of the blue.

That all is reasonable, just that most of the people wouldn´t take up such efforts to form their decision, aside from those who already have it regardless on what new informations would be provided to them.

At least, I agree with your proposal it does make sense to me.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

You don't need to have a referendum to hold a debate. If you want to debate, knock yourself out, debating is free. Although to blunt over the many years I have been a member of this forum, republicans have done a Stirling job of proving to me how unwelcome my community and culture would be in this (dis) united ireland. In some ways it was a mistake joining this site in the first place since because of the attitudes of many republicans, I have found my stance hardening. I know that my culture is not welcome or respected in the Republic of Ireland today, I can see it only getting worse. Even just a quick peruse of this thread gives an indication of what many of you really think about my community, 'knuckle draggers', 'thugs', ' Neanderthals' are just some of the ever so endearing names you call us. The great irony is, and one republicans will never get is that the biggest barrier to a united ireland is republicans themselves

I number many Unionists as my friends, I deal with them everyday of the week. As somebody else said, that is the norm, that is everyday life. What is wrong, is that you are all too happy to let the extremeists do your talking. What we won't have in a United Ireland is the belligerent, suprematist, nay saying Unionist. They, like their opposite numbers in the Republican community are a disappearing breed. No matter how you spin it, the protests over Xmas where minor, an irritant, that did huge and the primary damage to Ulster Unionism but have been largely handled now. By what? The interjection of Unionist leaders, doing their jobs because they now know that there is nothing to be gained from that kind of reaction. You may win a battle but you profoundly lose the war.

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

You don't need to have a referendum to hold a debate. ...

I see it also the other way round, debate can lead to referendum and referendum can cause debate.

junder wrote: »

Although to blunt over the many years I have been a member of this forum, republicans have done a Stirling job of proving to me how unwelcome my community and culture would be in this (dis) united ireland. In some ways it was a mistake joining this site in the first place since because of the attitudes of many republicans, I have found my stance hardening. I know that my culture is not welcome or respected in the Republic of Ireland today, I can see it only getting worse. Even just a quick peruse of this thread gives an indication of what many of you really think about my community, 'knuckle draggers', 'thugs', ' Neanderthals' are just some of the ever so endearing names you call us. The great irony is, and one republicans will never get is that the biggest barrier to a united ireland is republicans themselves

I´m not as long on these boards as you´re and my impression is that those "bad name calling" comes more from the depicting of your community in the media and some ignorance by the receptionists. I admit that I don´t know very much about your community, but at least I´ve started to learn and try to understand what it is all about their culture.

Probably you´re right with your opinions in some ways, as I´ve also observed that even the slightest efforts I´ve taken in some posts to convince some people that it´s necessary to respect or at least accept the way of life of Unionists is something like the "entry ticket" into a UI, but to no avail. I for myself am sure that it can´t be realised without your community, but it doesn´t look as if they really care.

Reekwind

junder wrote: »

Even just a quick peruse of this thread gives an indication of what many of you really think about my community, 'knuckle draggers', 'thugs', ' Neanderthals' are just some of the ever so endearing names you call us

Are you a Loyalist paramilitary? If so, then yes, I was calling you a "thug". If not, drop the siege mentality and stop looking for insults where there are none

junder

Reekwind wrote: »

Are you a Loyalist paramilitary? If so, then yes, I was calling you a "thug". If not, drop the siege mentality and stop looking for insults where there are none

I'm not a paramiltary but I am a loyalist and the 'name callers' where not specific about who within my community they where calling those names, but yer your attitude is really convincing me on the merits of a united ireland, please continue

junder

Thomas_I wrote: »

I see it also the other way round, debate can lead to referendum and referendum can cause debate.



I´m not as long on these boards as you´re and my impression is that those "bad name calling" comes more from the depicting of your community in the media and some ignorance by the receptionists. I admit that I don´t know very much about your community, but at least I´ve started to learn and try to understand what it is all about their culture.

Probably you´re right with your opinions in some ways, as I´ve also observed that even the slightest efforts I´ve taken in some posts to convince some people that it´s necessary to respect or at least accept the way of life of Unionists is something like the "entry ticket" into a UI, but to no avail. I for myself am sure that it can´t be realised without your community, but it doesn´t look as if they really care.

I am not sectarian, racist, homophobic or sexist and yet because I am in a flute band and a loyal order I am regarded as a figure of hate by republicans.

ardmacha

I am not sectarian, racist, homophobic or sexist and yet because I am in a flute band and a loyal order I am regarded as a figure of hate by republicans.

How about imperialist?

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

I am not sectarian, racist, homophobic or sexist and yet because I am in a flute band and a loyal order I am regarded as a figure of hate by republicans.

That´s a pity, but I don´t see you that way. I can assure you of that, but I´m not a republican either.

Maybe you take all these general name calling on your community too much to heart yourself(?). Probably it´s more the case that you´re among the vey few who are "targetted" as loyalists in these threads I´ve been posting too.

Thomas_I

ardmacha wrote: »

How about imperialist?

How about to consider the advantages Ireland and its people have had while the whole of the Island was part of the UK and did its bit within the British Empire. Benefitting from that status to colonise America, Australia, New Zealand and where ever any Irish people settled. They got many hardships, but they got as well to chances to settle into a new world and make their own way of life, mostly in the USA and helped the US Government to extent the territory of the USA on the expence of the Amer-Indians.

The Irish were with the English in the same boot together (literally spoken), not only by extending and maintaining the BE but also - together with other immigrants from different countries - in the USA. So much for imperialism.

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

And they'll do what? The greatest problem in the North was never the bigotry of Unionist politicians or even the brutality of Loyalist thugs. It was that these were supported by a thoroughly sectarian state apparatus. Without that, as we saw over Christmas, Loyalist rage is just hot air

If someone attacked your car, your home, your place of work and then sent you a death threat, would you be referring to it as "just hot air"?

djpbarry

Happyman42 wrote: »

I number many Unionists as my friends, I deal with them everyday of the week. As somebody else said, that is the norm, that is everyday life.

It really isn't, because in the rest of the UK and Ireland, people tend not to label each other according to their political persuasion. I have absolutely no idea who my friends vote for.

Happyman42 wrote: »

What we won't have in a United Ireland is the belligerent, suprematist, nay saying Unionist. They, like their opposite numbers in the Republican community are a disappearing breed.

Eh, do you not see the incredible hypocrisy in that statement?

Happyman42 wrote: »

No matter how you spin it, the protests over Xmas where minor...

They were of a similar scale to the riots in London and there is no way you'll find any Londoners referring to them as "minor".

Happyman42 wrote: »

The interjection of Unionist leaders, doing their jobs because they now know that there is nothing to be gained from that kind of reaction.

Are these the same Unionist leaders who demanded action be taken against Basil McCrea for supporting the flag vote?

Happyman42

djpbarry wrote: »

It really isn't, because in the rest of the UK and Ireland, people tend not to label each other according to their political persuasion. I have absolutely no idea who my friends vote for.

What I meant was, that we are not at loggerheads, business happens everyday, interaction etc etc. Junder would like the perception to go out that the evryday is hindered by bigotry and protest...it's not in most areas.

Eh, do you not see the incredible hypocrisy in that statement?

No.

They were of a similar scale to the riots in London and there is no way you'll find any Londoners referring to them as "minor".

They where minor in the context of what we have seen in the past here. Disorganised, wholly ineffective without the weight of 'official' party participation and largely over, in terms of having any effect. They have peetered out quicker than Ulster Says No campaign and Garvaghy Road.(both of which also failed to achieve any gain and only detracted from the Unionist image)

Are these the same Unionist leaders who demanded action be taken against Basil McCrea for supporting the flag vote?

Are you saying that the involvement of the leaders of official Unionism didn't lead to the ending of the violent protest??

Reekwind

junder wrote: »

I'm not a paramiltary but I am a loyalist and the 'name callers' where not specific about who within my community they where calling those names, but yer your attitude is really convincing me on the merits of a united ireland, please continue

So when I referred to the "brutality of Loyalist thugs" you somehow took this as a slur on an entire community? If I pointed out a black cat would you assume that all cats are black?

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. That would clearly be a waste of time

djpbarry wrote:

If someone attacked your car, your home, your place of work and then sent you a death threat, would you be referring to it as "just hot air"?

I didn't say that the protests weren't violent or regrettable but they were incoherent, fruitless and ultimately, on anything but a personal level, not very important. The protests were of note more for what the said about the Unionist movement than anything else