So, what REAL reasons for the union or not?

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

To you of course it is.

However I would like to see both original context and the source for the quote (where the writer of the book you wrote got it from).

You have both the name of the book and the page number, But since you don't seem to have access to google the author is graham walker

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

You have both the name of the book and the page number, But since you don't seem to have access to google the author is graham walker

Okay I will order the book.

You have it to hand though, dont you?

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

Actually De Valera stood up to pressure to actual turn the Free State into a Roman Catholic confessional state which at the time drew praise from both the Protestant and Jewish community, and resisted the RC Hierarchy on things like social housing and Spain. De Valera seems to get a rough time these days from everyone. I actually admire the man if not everything that he did.

When was that? From what I´ve read about him, and I admit I haven´t read the whole biography about him yet, I rather distrust this statement. His biography is very important in the light of his relations to the RCC, because from his early youth in Ireland, he had strong connections to the clergy and at that time he even considered to become a Priest. Imagine this just for a while in regards to what he did after the ratification of the Anglo-Irish-Treaty. The influence the clergy got during the time of the negotiations for the Anglo-Irish-Treaty came from the advice-seeking De Valera. He even couldn´t make his own decisions without consulting them in his capacity as President of the Irish Republic (Dáil 1919).

I don´t admire De Valera because he was at the top of the leading figures of the Anti-Treatities and therefore he, among other Die-hard Republicans, had the blood of many Irish people on his hands. My admiration goes rather to Michael Collins, although not all what he did is worth some admiration. I still believe, that if he hadn´t been killed in that ambush on 22 August 1922, the future of Ireland had been more different and according to his pragmatism, probably more successful than in the decades of De Valera. But that´s pure speculation.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its funny that the RC Hierarchy in Ireland, particularly in the 26 counties, was so right-wing when the RC Hierarchy in England and Scotland was relatively speaking pretty far to the left and aligned to the Labour Party. George Galloway for instance is a practicing RC who is pretty socially conservative. This leads me to think that it wasnt so much the religion of the hierarchy that was the important factor but the fact of their social class and who their families were.

That´s neither funny nor surprising to me, because in the 1920s and 1930s the RCC has been not only right-wing in some countries, they even supported Fascist Regimes like in Italy or came to terms like in Germany in 1933. The other example is Spain during their civil war 1936 to 1939. I don´t think that it´s appropriate to assess countries with a RC majority to those in which they´re a minority, like in GB where the Church of England is directly related to the Monarchy. But despite that fact, the influence of the CoE is imo less than that of the RCC in other countries has been.

SoulandForm wrote: »

I believe the best solution for everyone whatever their background is direct rule from Dublin.

I don´t think so, because it might be better to give some powers to the County councils to decide upon local or regional issues. Direct rule from Dublin means absolute central ruling and if you´d think about the chances of an United Ireland, it´d be necessary to take that into account. That means, that the people in NI should - at least - have their say in regional matters. Otherwise it wouldn´t work.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

Look the DUP have never came out and said that their sharing platforms with Loyalist Paramilitaries was wrong. They have never come and said that their importing of guns for the whole Ulster Resistance thing was wrong. A former leader of the UUP on television made some pretty shocking to a normal society statements on the Loyalist paramilitaries on a documentary- than there was their whole behaviour around Drumcree which again they never said was wrong. Sinn Fein still celebrate the Provisionals. The Alliance is only Party unconditionally loyal to the Law as it is written. Northern Ireland remains pretty lawless.

These links lead to two different videos concerning the DUP and their present attitudes towards democracy. It´s interesting to watch them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20960839

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/northern_ireland/newsid_9777000/9777315.stm

It´s not so important to have the DUP and SF to say what they did in the past was wrong without bearing in mind how worse the times were then. It´s the past and to achieve a better NI for all its people, one has to deal with the present problems to reach a better future and don´t look always to the past.

The Alliance Party is the more liberal among the parties in NI, but it was to say the least, foolish of themselves if they hadn´t considered the outrage of the Unionist / Loyalist community upon the "Flag-issue". I won´t believe that they were not aware of that. Insofar it was an prematurelly and unsensitive motion of the Alliance Party because it had had been clear to them that the time for such a move wasn´t right and this is what the last weeks proved. Now the whole issue made it into the international news and the damage on the NI reputations abroad is done. It wouldn´t be that bad if this wouldn´t deter some investors to invest in NI and these thugs did a great service to their country in this regards and "thankfully" this part of Ireland remains as the laughing-stock of Europe as if the people there had no other problems than a Union Flag flying on the flagpole of a City Hall.

Now as before, it´s a problem of the whole society, not only of the Unionists or Republican communities, but also of the Alliance Party who opened the panderas box.

Up to date the estimated costs for the PSNI during the protests and riots in the past weeks are £7m! Just to think about that amount of money and for which better things it had could been invested is outrageous.

ardmacha

Insofar it was an prematurelly and unsensitive motion of the Alliance Party because it had had been clear to them that the time for such a move wasn´t right and this is what the last weeks proved.

This "the time wasn't right" is trotted out again and again. Why was the time not right? There are fewer unionists proper than nationalists in the city. The time of year was away from the sectarian marching season. Places like Stormont and several unionist controlled councils had already adopted the designated days model.

There was nothing wrong with the time. The Unionist parties ramped up the issue for short term political advantage.

Thomas_I

ardmacha wrote: »

This "the time wasn't right" is trotted out again and again. Why was the time not right? There are fewer unionists proper than nationalists in the city. The time of year was away from the sectarian marching season. Places like Stormont and several unionist controlled councils had already adopted the designated days model.

There was nothing wrong with the time. The Unionist parties ramped up the issue for short term political advantage.

In my considerations it wasn´t about the time of the year, it was more in regards of the development of the still ongoing peaceprocess. Would you say that the peaceprocess has reached its aim at the present time? It doesn´t look like that to me.

The Unionists ramped up the issue, but the others delivered it to them.

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

I don´t admire De Valera because he was at the top of the leading figures of the Anti-Treatities and therefore he, among other Die-hard Republicans, had the blood of many Irish people on his hands. My admiration goes rather to Michael Collins, although not all what he did is worth some admiration. I still believe, that if he hadn´t been killed in that ambush on 22 August 1922, the future of Ireland had been more different and according to his pragmatism, probably more successful than in the decades of De Valera. But that´s pure speculation.

I strongly disagree here. There were other issues and currents at work beside the Treaty in the southern Irish civil war and this can clearly be seen in the class composition on both sides . Michael Collins was a brutal thug who if he had lived would probably have made himself a dictator. We only have to compare Dev's actions once he took power to those of the CnG government with their refusal to deal with the grave social problems left over in Ireland from colonialism, complete pandering to every desire of the big bosses and farmers as well as vindictive treatment of their enemies during the civil war.

SoulandForm

I'' get back to your question late but first I have to deal with this. The Roman Catholic Hierarchy opposed the War of Independence and opposed the Republican side in the civil war, just like they had opposed the Land League and the Fenians before that. Just because you maybe a pious Roman Catholic which De Valera was undoubtably does not mean you believe that everything a Bishop says has to be obeyed under all circumstances. There is and was a much greater variety of beliefs and approaches within traditional Roman Catholicism than southern Irish liberals and Loyalists give credit for. Which leads me to my second point. The relationship of Roman Catholicism to politics varies greatly from country to country, as well as even from region to region within a country. In Germany for instance the mass of RCs and their Bishops were behind the Liberal Party there. The RCC also bravely spoke out against the execesses of the Third Reich and its position in relation to that government was very close to that of the Protestant Confessing Church- though socially it was in a stronger position to defend itself. The Christian group that behaved most shamefully during the Reich was theologically liberal Protestants which shouldnt come as a surprise as they have a tendency to bend to any culture around them no matter how far removed from the Gospel.

Thomas_I wrote: »

The influence the clergy got during the time of the negotiations for the Anglo-Irish-Treaty came from the advice-seeking De Valera. He even couldn´t make his own decisions without consulting them in his capacity as President of the Irish Republic (Dáil 1919).

That´s neither funny nor surprising to me, because in the 1920s and 1930s the RCC has been not only right-wing in some countries, they even supported Fascist Regimes like in Italy or came to terms like in Germany in 1933. The other example is Spain during their civil war 1936 to 1939. I don´t think that it´s appropriate to assess countries with a RC majority to those in which they´re a minority, like in GB where the Church of England is directly related to the Monarchy. But despite that fact, the influence of the CoE is imo less than that of the RCC in other countries has been.
.

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

.

The Alliance Party is the more liberal among the parties in NI, but it was to say the least, foolish of themselves if they hadn´t considered the outrage of the Unionist / Loyalist community upon the "Flag-issue". I won´t believe that they were not aware of that. Insofar it was an prematurelly and unsensitive motion of the Alliance Party because it had had been clear to them that the time for such a move wasn´t right and this is what the last weeks proved. Now the whole issue made it into the international news and the damage on the NI reputations abroad is done.

With all respect Naomi Long is a working class Unionist from East Belfast and I would trust that she knows and understands her people better than people from the south do. Sinn Fein and the SDLP wanted to get rid of the Flag altogether- the Alliance solution of bringing Belfast into line with the UK mainland which is completely in line with their brand of Unionism.

Do you honestly believe that sectarian violent Loyalism will just go away on its own accord if left to itself unchallenged? I dont and I dont see why Northern Ireland should be held to ransom by these thugs. Unless they are faced down now and not molly coddled they will grow in arrogance and aggression. The fear that these people and the paramilitaries they support and look up to inspire over ordinary decent working class unionist communities is not a pretty sight at all.

The fact is that soon these people will have to face a Nationalist council.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

With all respect Naomi Long is a working class Unionist from East Belfast and I would trust that she knows and understands her people better than people from the south do. Sinn Fein and the SDLP wanted to get rid of the Flag altogether- the Alliance solution of bringing Belfast into line with the UK mainland which is completely in line with their brand of Unionism.

Do you honestly believe that sectarian violent Loyalism will just go away on its own accord if left to itself unchallenged? I dont and I dont see why Northern Ireland should be held to ransom by these thugs. Unless they are faced down now and not molly coddled they will grow in arrogance and aggression. The fear that these people and the paramilitaries they support and look up to inspire over ordinary decent working class unionist communities is not a pretty sight at all.

The fact is that soon these people will have to face a Nationalist council.

Evidently she doesn't know 'her community'. As for bringing it inline with the rest of the UK there are at least 20 city councils that fly the union flag all year round so there is NI hard and fast rule over how long it flys through out the year. Even in Northern Ireland the stormont designated days list is different to city halls. I did have a list of them, will post it when I find it. Since nationalist and republicans are so confident about thier expanding numbers, parhaps they should have waited until they had a clear majorty instead of sacrificing the alliance party for is effectively a cheap shot. Nobody was offended by the union flag flying all year around as evidenced by the distinct lack of complaints (under 5 people Actually complained about it) and the councils own equality, diversity impact survey. But republicans should be happy they got what they wanted, or did they. I suspect they thought the usual would happen, a few days unrest and then it would be over, even they didn't see this mass revolt happening and don't be mistaken willy frazer and the UPv are not the spokes person for these protests, and Neither does east Belfast lead the way. The majorty of protests are peaceful and come from the community's we live in. Where I live it's women unconnected with any political party or grouping and they have been completely peaceful

woodoo

junder wrote: »

Evidently she doesn't know 'her community'. As for bringing it inline with the rest of the UK there are at least 20 city councils that fly the union flag all year round so there is NI hard and fast rule over how long it flys through out the year. Even in Northern Ireland the stormont designated days list is different to city halls. I did have a list of them, will post it when I find it. Since nationalist and republicans are so confident about thier expanding numbers, parhaps they should have waited until they had a clear majorty instead of sacrificing the alliance party for is effectively a cheap shot. Nobody was offended by the union flag flying all year around as evidenced by the distinct lack of complaints (under 5 people Actually complained about it) and the councils own equality, diversity impact survey. But republicans should be happy they got what they wanted, or did they. I suspect they thought the usual would happen, a few days unrest and then it would be over, even they didn't see this mass revolt happening and don't be mistaken willy frazer and the UPv are not the spokes person for these protests, and Neither does east Belfast lead the way. The majorty of protests are peaceful and come from the community's we live in. Where I live it's women unconnected with any political party or grouping and they have been completely peaceful

Maybe now with this prolonged attack on the police by loyalists the PSNI may begin to see them in a different light. The PSNI has been famously soft on loyalist rioters. This may be coming to an end now.

junder

woodoo wrote: »

Maybe now with this prolonged attack on the police by loyalists the PSNI may begin to see them in a different light. The PSNI has been famously soft on loyalist rioters. This may be coming to an end now.

Evidence?

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

I strongly disagree here. There were other issues and currents at work beside the Treaty in the southern Irish civil war and this can clearly be seen in the class composition on both sides . Michael Collins was a brutal thug who if he had lived would probably have made himself a dictator. We only have to compare Dev's actions once he took power to those of the CnG government with their refusal to deal with the grave social problems left over in Ireland from colonialism, complete pandering to every desire of the big bosses and farmers as well as vindictive treatment of their enemies during the civil war.

I won´t start an unnecessary argument about the characters of De Valera and Collins. They both were outstanding personalities but they were as well both on extrem sides eachother. There are many people in Ireland who consider the decades in which De Valera was in power as being a "dictatorship" in association with the RCC. Collins wasn´t just "a brutal thug" he had the guts and the means to resist and fight the British that Dev had never could achieve while "touring the USA for support of the recognition of the Irish Republic". If you had read some writings of Collins himself, you would see that he was far from making himself a dictator. Collins and Griffith were the only two reasonable persons among the six plenipotentiaries to negotiate with the British to reach the maximum possible they could get out of that for Ireland. Their pragmatism made it possible to get at least some "freedom and selfgovernment" for more than 2/3 of the Irish Island. The threat of war by the British was to press the Irish to either accept the treaty or face war, for there wasn´t anything further to negotiate from the British side. They have made concessions enough to the Irish. Dev knew as well as Collins that a recognition of the Irish Republic by the British was out of question.

There might have been other issues during the civil war as well, but the breaking point was the treaty.

I consider the better times in the history of the Irish state as those years after the civil war when W. T. Cosgrave seeked to get some stabilisation and the decades after De Valera retired from politics because just then Ireland to move towards a modern European state.

What was the point anyway for Dev having an economic war with the British in the 1930s? It left Ireland poorer than without it. It took much more time for the country to recover from the civil war.
Wasn´t it the case that in the event of the abdication of the English King Edward VIII in December 1936 any other leader of a then Irish government would had been obliged to take that opportunity to get rid of the oath of allegiance to the King and to set up a new constitution for the Irish state in 1937?

As you said about the civil war "there were other issues and currents at work", so it applies for the crucial time from 1932 to 1949 in which Dev was in power. I refer in that case to the British PMs at the time from 1932 to 1940, untill Churchill took over. But I´ll stop here because this is another matter.

tipptom

Does anyone think, after the the professional rioters are driven of the streets that it might not be a bad thing thing that the Alliance party with some help might somehow come to an agreement to fly the flag on say another six days?

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

I'' get back to your question late but first I have to deal with this. The Roman Catholic Hierarchy opposed the War of Independence and opposed the Republican side in the civil war, just like they had opposed the Land League and the Fenians before that.

I agree with you re the opposition of the RCC towards the civil war. I´d had to read something about their opposition towards the Land League and the Fenians. I admit I know nothing about this in particular.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Just because you maybe a pious Roman Catholic which De Valera was undoubtably does not mean you believe that everything a Bishop says has to be obeyed under all circumstances.

Certainly not but it is stated by not less historians that De Valera and the by himself founded party FF which understood itself as something like a "Republican Conservative" party, supported and gave way to the influence of the RCC within the society of the Irish state. The point is "in circumstances" as the befriended Priest of Dev said to him re the facing of another war with Britain before the treaty was signed, that "under some circumstances war can be justified". It is enough to take a look on the records of the RCC about the wars initiated and hailed by them through centuries. In many times the RC Church had its inteference into politics it ended up with war because the RCC has been very eager to keep their power and just the secularisation at the turn of the 18th / 19th Century shortened their power in certain European counties. England was the first country who opposed them in the first place long before and personally, from my point of view I´m more in sympathy with the Protestants than the RCC but I detest the kind of Ian Paisely and his "Protestantism". He is the other example of an Priest interfering with politics and spreading hatred towards other, the Irish people.

SoulandForm wrote: »

There is and was a much greater variety of beliefs and approaches within traditional Roman Catholicism than southern Irish liberals and Loyalists give credit for.

Approaches towards what in particular?

SoulandForm wrote: »

Which leads me to my second point. The relationship of Roman Catholicism to politics varies greatly from country to country, as well as even from region to region within a country. In Germany for instance the mass of RCs and their Bishops were behind the Liberal Party there. The RCC also bravely spoke out against the execesses of the Third Reich and its position in relation to that government was very close to that of the Protestant Confessing Church- though socially it was in a stronger position to defend itself. The Christian group that behaved most shamefully during the Reich was theologically liberal Protestants which shouldnt come as a surprise as they have a tendency to bend to any culture around them no matter how far removed from the Gospel.

That´s not all quite so as you say. I agree with you an the varies from country to country. The RCC and their Bishops in Germany were not behind the liberal party before 1933. They were behind the conservatives which was then the "Centre Party" and some of their ilk. The Vatican and the Nazis made a treaty called the "Reichskonkordat" in which the rights of the RCC within Germany were guaranteed (formally). The RCC and the Vatican were, with just a few exceptions of some brave Bishops not openly opposing the policies of the Nazis, not even then when they conquered nearly the whole of Europe from 1939 to 1942 and the Vatican even helped some Nazi war-criminals to escape from Europe after 1945 with false passports and other false documents. Among them, Josef Mengele and Adolf Eichmann.

The German Protestants, who call themselves the "Evangelican-Lutheranians", were indeed followers of the Nazis, but even among them one can find resistance against the Nazi-Regime.

There isn´t much difference between these two Christian Churches in Germany re their contributions in favour and in resistance towards the Thrid Reich. Some similar can be said for the by the Germans occupied countries in Europe. As some national governments in these countries, their churches had to come to terms as well with the Germans as long as the occupation lasted.

Protestantism in NI is different from their sister churches in other European countries because it has been politicised by the Unionists and Loyalists and therefore imo abused. With the exception of Ian Paisely I don´t know of any other Protestant Priest such involved into politics than him. He really was the leader of the Unionists in NI and I can´t tell of any person from the Republican side that equals him in his position.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

With all respect Naomi Long is a working class Unionist from East Belfast and I would trust that she knows and understands her people better than people from the south do. Sinn Fein and the SDLP wanted to get rid of the Flag altogether- the Alliance solution of bringing Belfast into line with the UK mainland which is completely in line with their brand of Unionism.

Even worse then that she didn´t know or considered her move better. The fact is that NI is still territory of the UK and normally there shouldn´t be an issue about whether the Union Flag has a right to be displayed on public buildings. It has also no meaning of representation in regards to the inhabitants of NI. The only representation of the Union Flag is about the British state, nothing more and nothing less.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that sectarian violent Loyalism will just go away on its own accord if left to itself unchallenged? I dont and I dont see why Northern Ireland should be held to ransom by these thugs. Unless they are faced down now and not molly coddled they will grow in arrogance and aggression. The fear that these people and the paramilitaries they support and look up to inspire over ordinary decent working class unionist communities is not a pretty sight at all.

The only way to make things better for them and others and thus taking them away from violence is to give all people in NI a prospect for a better future and make them see and experience that improvements are working. That means equal chances and prosperity for all of them, Unionists / Loyalists and Nationalists. To show them how taff a party can be on a decision upon national symbols is ridiculours, the damage in finances and reputation for NI and Belfast in particular are the regrettable results of that decision.

SoulandForm wrote: »

The fact is that soon these people will have to face a Nationalist council.

I don´t believe in that because I think that there are more reasonable people in NI than those who showed up on the streets in the past weeks. I rather hope that these reasonable people will prevail to make NI a better place for all. I doubt that the Alliance Party alone is the right answer to that. It either works if all work together or it fails and there still much to learn about democracy on both sides.

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

... Even in Northern Ireland the stormont designated days list is different to city halls. I did have a list of them, will post it when I find it...

There you go:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2000/347/contents/made

The List is to find in the original print PDF.

ardmacha

The fact is that NI is still territory of the UK and normally there shouldn´t be an issue about whether the Union Flag has a right to be displayed on public buildings.

Nonsense. Local authorities have the business of collecting bins and the like, not decking themselves out like Orange Halls so that one political faction in their district feel good about themselves. The Patton report was clear that the practice of police stations identifying with one political faction was a hindrance to their perception of providing a service to all, and the same is true of other public bodies.

Thomas_I

ardmacha wrote: »

Nonsense. Local authorities have the business of collecting bins and the like, not decking themselves out like Orange Halls so that one political faction in their district feel good about themselves. The Patton report was clear that the practice of police stations identifying with one political faction was a hindrance to their perception of providing a service to all, and the same is true of other public bodies.

As you like it.

ardmacha

As you like it.

Me and Chris Patton.

Thomas_I

ardmacha wrote: »

Me and Chris Patton.

Who´s Chris Patton?

Anyway, I think that this thread has already gone too far from the OP. That´s why I think it´s better to give the whole "flag issue" a rest.

Have a nice time, you and Chris Patton and of course SoulandForm.:)

LincolnsBeard

tipptom wrote: »

Having lived in England for a lot of years,your average English man has nothing in common with your average Welsh or Scottish man and a Newcastle man and his accent is like a foreigner to your average Londoner

Complete nonsense.

mistermouse

Politics in Ireland is all about power -getting it and holding it

Just as Southern Politicians use gombeenism to get power, Northern Politicians use the Religious and more often than not sectarianism to get and hold power

The advent of Stormont has put more pressure on Northern Politicians to actually work and contribute more to Politics

The Flag issue/riots have little to do with identity or Unionism being discriminated against (Even Royal Residences don't fly it 365)

As for a United Ireland, for someone from Donegal, a lot of the Republic citizens do not realise Donegal is in the Republic, but you will find that alot of people here quite like the ability to shop in the North etc. Also our local economy has been helped more by Northern Tourists/shoppers depending on STG values

If the Republic even could afford Northern Ireland it would probably forget it most of the time like it does Donegal

One thing often seems to be forgotten is the amount of Peace Monies poured into Northern Ireland, which often puts the other border counties in the Republic at a huge disadvantage. Whilst they get some, no where near whats offered across the border. If these funds and the UK 'maintainence' Grants were cut, Northern Ireland would be in serious bother

Northern Politicians need to get their act together in any case and start working on real issues rather than continuing to work on the basis that taking religious or sectarian lines to get their positions of power

SoulandForm

mistermouse wrote: »

Just as Southern Politicians use gombeenism to get power, Northern Politicians use the Religious and more often than not sectarianism to get and hold power

Northern politicians also use Gombeenism.

The DUP are a Presbyterian wing of Fianna Fail.

They are a lot more Irish than the Alliance Party which is more British.

Little_Korean

woodoo wrote: »

Maybe now with this prolonged attack on the police by loyalists the PSNI may begin to see them in a different light. The PSNI has been famously soft on loyalist rioters. This may be coming to an end now.

Soft, according to nationalists. And going against their own, when called upon to surpress these same rioters, according to the loyalists. The RUC/PSNI famously got it in the neck from both sides, so the current situation is nothing new.

tipptom

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

Complete nonsense.

Well thats settled then.

Ask your average english man what he has in common with a Welsh man and he will tell you nothing,ask them what they have in common with loyalists who wave the Union jack all the time and they will tell you ABsolutly nothing.
It may suit loyalists to say thats nonsense and that England wants them,but its not the reality,any English people I know used to break their arses laughing at grown men marching down the street with bowler hats and brollys spitting venom about how their religion is so superior.

LincolnsBeard

tipptom wrote: »

Well thats settled then.

Ask your average english man what he has in common with a Welsh man and he will tell you nothing,ask them what they have in common with loyalists who wave the Union jack all the time and they will tell you ABsolutly nothing.
It may suit loyalists to say thats nonsense and that England wants them,but its not the reality,any English people I know used to break their arses laughing at grown men marching down the street with bowler hats and brollys spitting venom about how their religion is so superior.

I am an English man and can assure you that I am average in all the ways a man can be. The English and the Welsh are incredibly alike. Although people from both countries may attempt to exaggerate the differences between them (such is life in these old islands), the truth is the similarities FAR outweigh the differences.

You claim that people from Newcastle are like foreigners to people from London. Once again, complete nonsense which I'm sure you would agree if you re-thought your statement.

The truth is you disagree with the situation in Northern Ireland which is why you are attempting to belittle the idea of Unionism amongst all countries in the UK, which is stupid on your part. You can comment on the situation in Northern Ireland without making ridiculous attacks on the state of the UK and how "foreign" they are from one another.

Thomas_I

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

I am an English man and can assure you that I am average in all the ways a man can be. The English and the Welsh are incredibly alike. Although people from both countries may attempt to exaggerate the differences between them (such is life in these old islands), the truth is the similarities FAR outweigh the differences.

You claim that people from Newcastle are like foreigners to people from London. Once again, complete nonsense which I'm sure you would agree if you re-thought your statement.

The truth is you disagree with the situation in Northern Ireland which is why you are attempting to belittle the idea of Unionism amongst all countries in the UK, which is stupid on your part. You can comment on the situation in Northern Ireland without making ridiculous attacks on the state of the UK and how "foreign" they are from one another.

I don´t think that he was belittleing the idea of Unionism of the UK, rather that fuss the Unionists in NI make of this on and on. This isn´t normal in compare to what most people think about the UK and the Union in GB. That´s how I understand his post.

tipptom

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

I am an English man and can assure you that I am average in all the ways a man can be. The English and the Welsh are incredibly alike. Although people from both countries may attempt to exaggerate the differences between them (such is life in these old islands), the truth is the similarities FAR outweigh the differences.

You claim that people from Newcastle are like foreigners to people from London. Once again, complete nonsense which I'm sure you would agree if you re-thought your statement.

The truth is you disagree with the situation in Northern Ireland which is why you are attempting to belittle the idea of Unionism amongst all countries in the UK, which is stupid on your part. You can comment on the situation in Northern Ireland without making ridiculous attacks on the state of the UK and how "foreign" they are from one another.

Well Lincoln,I have rethought my statement and i dont see anything to go back on.The truth is that Welsh people probably have more in common with Irish people than English people.

Your average Londoner goes up to Newcastle and treats it the same way as a weekend in Cork,like going to another country.

Truth is that I dont disagree with the situation in NI,I voted for it,did you?

Unionism and Loyalism in NI means nothing to your average English man in the way the union of Scotland and England does.I dont see where I have made ridiculous attacks on the state of the UK,and I dont need to use the word stupid about you.Their is a hint of superiorority in your posts.

Happyman42

I think 'Britian' has started the process of divesting itself of NI. I say 'divesting' because I think it has become a burden to them.
Increasingly you will see militant Unionist against Unionist, diehard Loyalist against Loyalist and Whitehall will not step in to mediate or save their blushes.
The whole Union thing has been undermined since the GFA, with it's signing I think most trenchant Unionist politicians seen the writing on the wall and have changed tack dramatically as a result (Paisley, Robinson etc) More and more moderates will distance themselves from the extremists and realise that they have to forge a new identity.
There always was a true christian ethos among the Protestant faithful and I think this will come to the fore again. Britishness will diminish in importance, couple that with an economically recovering Republic and incentives from the British and I think a UI is a real possibility.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think 'Britian' has started the process of divesting itself of NI. I say 'divesting' because I think it has become a burden to them.
Increasingly you will see militant Unionist against Unionist, diehard Loyalist against Loyalist and Whitehall will not step in to mediate or save their blushes.
The whole Union thing has been undermined since the GFA, with it's signing I think most trenchant Unionist politicians seen the writing on the wall and have changed tack dramatically as a result (Paisley, Robinson etc) More and more moderates will distance themselves from the extremists and realise that they have to forge a new identity.
There always was a true christian ethos among the Protestant faithful and I think this will come to the fore again. Britishness will diminish in importance, couple that with an economically recovering Republic and incentives from the British and I think a UI is a real possibility.

How wrong you are

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

How wrong you are

If it's wrong, do tell us why.

Where, if the flag issue is so important (as we are constantly being told), are the thousands and thousands of Unionists on these protests? Have they even managed to cross 2000 attendance at one of the peaceful ones?
I think there are those who are ramping up the existence of a province wide objection for their own ends, same as they did with the Drumcree/Garvaghy Road issue, Ulster Says No etc.
The days of the Workers Strike when a political leader could mobilise 100's of thousands is long gone.
I honestly think these things don't really matter that much to ordinary decent Unionists anymore, or maybe they come to realise that their position is untenable and that's why the protest fades away. Nationalists seem much more tenacious in achieving what they want, Bloody Sunday justice, Finucane inquiry, parade re-routing etc.
Genuine question, can you explain Junder?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

If it's wrong, do tell us why.

Not going to speak for junder (or for any unionist or loyalist, of which I am neither), but: whenever I see a confident prediction from a nationalist that a united Ireland is inevitable, and that right soon, it's always premised on the idea that unionists will quietly resign themselves to the inevitability of their fate, decide that Britishness isn't important to them, and cheerfully forge a new identity.

Now, the same prognosticators never seem to contemplate even the remotest possibility that the nationalist population would ever, ever give up on the idea of being Irish, so what makes them so certain that other people's national identity is so much less important to them?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

it's always premised on the idea that unionists will quietly resign themselves to the inevitability of their fate, decide that Britishness isn't important to them, and cheerfully forge a new identity.

Maybe you could answer the question I asked Junder too? I think events up to and after the GFA show quite plainly that there is a very definite 'resignation' within Unionism on a lot of what once would have been considered 'core' beliefs, not up for negotiation.
What sea change happened to allow 'The Chuckle Brothers' to emerge for instance?

LordSutch

One thing that I have heard many times on Irish & British tv news in recent weeks is that "The Union is safe" . . . .

This has been said in relation to the hundreds (rather than thousands) who have marched & rioted re the flag not being flown 365 days a year.

The Union is safe, and Peter Robinson knows this as do 99% of the Unionist community. On the other hand, hardline Loyalist working class communities feel (rightly or wrongly) sidelined and let down since the GFA. I think Belfast City council made a total pants of the whole flag issue, which should have been done after the busy Christmas shopping period, and with some tact.

mlumley

goz83 wrote: »

There should be a vote every 10 years up north to decide whether the north is viewed as part of the UK, or whether it falls to the control of the Dail. Then, when we have a united Ireland, the voting should stop
QUOTE]


A bit like Europe made us do over Nice :eek:, vote every ten years till you win......dont seam fair to me:(.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe you could answer the question I asked Junder too? I think events up to and after the GFA show quite plainly that there is a very definite 'resignation' within Unionism on a lot of what once would have been considered 'core' beliefs, not up for negotiation.
What sea change happened to allow 'The Chuckle Brothers' to emerge for instance?

For a start there are more then one peaceful protests, there are literally hundreds across Northern Ireland, some In Scotland a few in England I have even seen a picture of one from Sydney, all of which have been organized by 'decent unionists' these people have shown remarkable tenacity, protesting in all weathers and six weeks later show no signs of stopping. I can assure you there is no resignation in my community,still if the alliance party suddenly become the biggest unionist party you may have a point

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe you could answer the question I asked Junder too? I think events up to and after the GFA show quite plainly that there is a very definite 'resignation' within Unionism on a lot of what once would have been considered 'core' beliefs, not up for negotiation.
What sea change happened to allow 'The Chuckle Brothers' to emerge for instance?

Shifts have been made on both sides, which are to be welcomed. Unionism moved from "Ulster says no" and "no surrender" towards a power-sharing executive; nationalism moved away from armed insurrection and territorial claims.

But the fact that nationalists resigned themselves to relinquishing the Republic's territorial claim on part of the UK doesn't indicate a trend that will end in them deciding not to be Irish any more; similarly a unionist move away from intransigence can't be interpreted as inevitably meaning that they will just decide not to be British.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Shifts have been made on both sides, which are to be welcomed. Unionism moved from "Ulster says no" and "no surrender" towards a power-sharing executive; nationalism moved away from armed insurrection and territorial claims.

But the fact that nationalists resigned themselves to relinquishing the Republic's territorial claim on part of the UK doesn't indicate a trend that will end in them deciding not to be Irish any more; similarly a unionist move away from intransigence can't be interpreted as inevitably meaning that they will just decide not to be British.

It means that they are not hemmed in or hidebound when hardy comes to hardy and self interest is to the fore. And imo the day is coming when the British will overtly show that they want to withdraw. The Unionists will then have a decision to make, be dragged into a new arrangement,(whatever that might be) kicking and screaming and be on the backfoot or to go in willingly and with equal voice.
There is no doubt that a 'new arrangement' is on the cards though, sooner rather than later. The Neanthethals will see to it, that it happens quicker too.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

It means that they are not hemmed in or hidebound when hardy comes to hardy and self interest is to the fore. And imo the day is coming when the British will overtly show that they want to withdraw. The Unionists will then have a decision to make, be dragged into a new arrangement,(whatever that might be) kicking and screaming and be on the backfoot or to go in willingly and with equal voice.
There is no doubt that a 'new arrangement' is on the cards though, sooner rather than later. The Neanthethals will see to it, that it happens quicker too.

What makes you so certain the British are going to want to withdraw? and why are you so certain that an independent Northern Ireland wouldn't work?

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

And imo the day is coming when the British will overtly show that they want to withdraw.

I think that day is maybe 50/60 years away at a minimum, I see no reason why they would. What do you base it on?

I can see them looking to have a referendum if Nationalists push for it, but that wouldn't mean they want to withdraw.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe you could answer the question I asked Junder too? I think events up to and after the GFA show quite plainly that there is a very definite 'resignation' within Unionism on a lot of what once would have been considered 'core' beliefs, not up for negotiation.
What sea change happened to allow 'The Chuckle Brothers' to emerge for instance?

The real politik happened

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What makes you so certain the British are going to want to withdraw? and why are you so certain that an independent Northern Ireland wouldn't work?

K-9 wrote: »

I think that day is maybe 50/60 years away at a minimum, I see no reason why they would. What do you base it on?

I can see them looking to have a referendum if Nationalists push for it, but that wouldn't mean they want to withdraw.

An independent NI will not work for reasons of economies of scale. Well it might work for a while but it would pull itself apart as standards of living fall.
It doesn't make any sense now and I can't envisage a time when it ever will.(maybe if they discover gold, oil and diamonds):rolleyes:

I think you just have to watch how the British 'intervene' nowadays to see the intent to eventually withdraw.
The balance has shifted hugely, as I genuinely think the newer generations of British parlimentarians realise that they really did behave badly. I think they are in a process of cleaning up the worst mistakes as a way of paving the way for an exit. They are less and less inclined to intercede forcefully on behalf of the Unionists and that particular hand continues to bite them.
It not a matter of 'the Irish Question' so much as 'the Irish Unionist Question'

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

For a start there are more then one peaceful protests, there are literally hundreds across Northern Ireland, some In Scotland a few in England I have even seen a picture of one from Sydney, all of which have been organized by 'decent unionists' these people have shown remarkable tenacity, protesting in all weathers and six weeks later show no signs of stopping. I can assure you there is no resignation in my community,still if the alliance party suddenly become the biggest unionist party you may have a point

What shows me that these are just a few Unionist "Expats" and the other people in Scotland, England and Australia don´t give a damn about the whole thing. These Expats seems to have nothing else to do than to "protesting in all weathers". I also suspect that those rioting in Belfast are rather unemployed and their chances to get a job are now rather deminished. As a result of the for weeks ongoing protests in Belfast 200 to 300 people got payed off on Wednesday. I think that these people were more interested in keeping their jobs than to have that bl**dy argument about the flag. If these protests continue, full time jobs will also get lost.

Your lot apparently doesn´t care about other people, even if they´re of their own community and are going to lose their jobs because of these protests which are going to damage the economy further. That´s not only selfishness, it´s pure insanity. You wouldn´t ask these people who recently lost their jobs about their opinions re the "flag fuss", cos you probably won´t take notice of them either.

Zico

Partition was a blessing in disguise, leaving aside the emotional issues of a united Ireland. We got our independence and someone else got our biggest problems. The status quo works out fine for us Mexicans.

Thomas_I

Zico wrote: »

Partition was a blessing in disguise, leaving aside the emotional issues of a united Ireland. We got our independence and someone else got our biggest problems. The status quo works out fine for us Mexicans.

That is an very interesting point of view, although there is no guarantee that those who got it won´t get rid of it.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

An independent NI will not work for reasons of economies of scale. Well it might work for a while but it would pull itself apart as standards of living fall.
It doesn't make any sense now and I can't envisage a time when it ever will.(maybe if they discover gold, oil and diamonds):rolleyes:

Why? There are smaller countries, both in size and populace then Northern Ireland and they could remain a protectorate of the UK.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why? There are smaller countries, both in size and populace then Northern Ireland and they could remain a protectorate of the UK.

You don't really understand the conflict do you?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You don't really understand the conflict do you?

Indeed I do, there is a growing rejection of both Irish and British identities in the modern Northern Ireland. In fact as of the latest poll the largest proportion of catholics now define themselves as Northern Irish. Who is to say an independent Northern Ireland wouldn't work with a catholic majority? Certainly it would take the problem out of our hands. A double win for both Dublin and London.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Indeed I do, there is a growing rejection of both Irish and British identities in the modern Northern Ireland. In fact as of the latest poll the largest proportion of catholics now define themselves as Northern Irish. Who is to say an independent Northern Ireland wouldn't work with a catholic majority? Certainly it would take the problem out of our hands. A double win for both Dublin and London.

I was referring to your suggestion that it could be a 'british protectorate' :rolleyes: