Northern Protestants.

Bertie Woot

dienbienphu wrote: »

If he's not a loyalist hes definitely a troll

What, for stating a historical fact?

I am neither a Loyalist (whatever the feck that is) or a troll.

gallag

This is sad reading, amazing people are for ethnic cleansing of my people. I should stop reading this forum least I change from moderate unionist to hard core loyalist. My fear of a U.I grows.

Bertie Woot

gallag wrote: »

This is sad reading, amazing people are for ethnic cleansing of my people. I should stop reading this forum least I change from moderate unionist to hard core loyalist. My fear of a U.I grows.

No-one wants to ethnically cleanse your people. Instead of fearing a UI and running away from it, run towards it and embrace it. There is room in a unified multicultural Ireland for all ethnicities and cultural identities, even that of the British and Ulster-Scots.

old hippy

Bertie Woot wrote: »

No-one wants to ethnically cleanse your people. Instead of fearing a UI and running away from it, run towards it and embrace it. There is room in a unified multicultural Ireland for all ethnicities and cultural identities, even that of the British and Ulster-Scots.

We already have a unified & mulitcultural Republic of Ireland. Why not embrace that, rather than try and drag in a foreign state that doesn't want to be part of said Republic?

dienbienphu

Bertie Woot wrote: »

What, for stating a historical fact?

I am neither a Loyalist (whatever the feck that is) or a troll.

Apologies, I was referring to iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot

old hippy wrote: »

We already have a unified & mulitcultural Republic of Ireland. Why not embrace that, rather than try and drag in a foreign state that doesn't want to be part of said Republic?

It's not foreign. You've just swallowed British imperialist propaganda. It's this type of defeatist attitude which lends legitimacy to the existence of the northern statelet. It is Irish land, Irish terrority, it was ours before colonisation, still is, and not all Irishmen have abandoned the very legitimate aspiration of Irish reunification. That is something you and other sell-outs fail to acknowledge and appreciate. Honestly, you people are a feckin disgrace. Wolfe Tone, who was a Protestant, would be rolling in his grave right now if he knew that the Irish had forfeited a part of their own country to the British oppressor in order to appease that oppressor.

LordSutch

Question for all those who crave a so called 'United Ireland'.

What exactly would it mean in the most basic terms? for example, would it mean converting the Unionist/Loyalist population to your way of thinking, or would the Nationalist/Republican goal be to outnumber "The Brits" in order to bring about a United Ireland by way of sidetracking the Unionists and getting the numbers to make it impossible for the North to stay in the Union?

Finally, what exactly would the advantage be in extracting Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom in practical terms?
Like any forseeable headaches for us if the border was dissolved?

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It is NOT "the land of another state".

Yes it is, that's a fact.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You consistently fail to recognise that what you term "another state" is nothing more than a British imperialist invention designed to legitimise the continued colonisation of a part of Ireland, which is our land.

It's not ours we have no God given right to the entire island. The people who own Northern Ireland are not the British they are the people of Northern Ireland and only they will decide their future. Not you not me not London not Dublin they themselves. Whether you like that or not.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You post like a Unionist, so I can only surmise that you are one.

I'm not but I love how you use the term as an insult. I guess to you it is.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The Ulster-Scots have a right to their own identity, ethnicity, culture and ethos, but not at the price of the continued partition of Ireland.

Why not? If they are a different people then they are a different nation and nations have a demarcated territory. In this case the North East of Ireland called Northern Ireland.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

We have a multicultural society in Ireland now, and Irish Republicanism is about tolerance for other cultures; the Ulster-Scots people would not be prevented from practising their culture in a unified independent Ireland.

That's nice to know but it's irrelevant. The Irish can practice their culture in the UK.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

And the bit about "No minorities right to self determination can ever be allowed to be drowned out by a majority. That is not democratic" is complete nonsense, as that is the very essence of democracy. When Northern Ireland eventually votes in favour of unification, the rights of the Ulster minority in favour of continued union with Britain shall have been trumped by the right of the majority who have voted in favour of unification. That is how democracy works. The majorities wishes must be respected and implemented, otherwise there is no democracy.

And what if the majority decide to outlaw homosexuality. Or expel foreign nationals. To have true democracy you must limit the democratic rights of the majority to discriminate against the minority. We have this at the moment in Ireland were homosexuals cannot get married because the majority don't allow them.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

In 1921 both Nationalists and Unionists were vociferously opposed to partition - fact. Both groups did not receive what they wanted.

Which is why a compromise was needed. A good deal is one where both parties walk away unhappy.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

As I have stated twice thus far: the Brits came here by invitation, and from King Dermot MacMurrough of Leinster. They then came across in increasingly higher numbers and what began as an invitation evolved into an invasion and consequent colonisation.

Yeah I remember learning in school Dermot was the devil too. Don't believe everything your teachers told you. The Normans would have invaded anyway sooner or later.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

We Irish have no-one but an ancient Irish King to blame for 800 years of British occupation.

So you blame the entire colonial history of our country on one man? You have a very simplistic view of history. You probably think Pearse was a saint who did no wrong in his life.

Iwasfrozen

dienbienphu wrote: »

There's nothing undeomocratic about creating an all ireland assembly as per the belfast agreement. I did not say anything about creating an all ireland dail. I said that an all ireland assembly could be used as the future blueprint for an all ireland dail . I'll probably have to repeat myself again because I don't think you are grasping what I am saying. I am pointing out to you scenarios which are likey to happen in the future. So that does not make me undeomocratic wherever you got that notion from.

No you want to ignore the GFA and have the British hand over power without a vote to this assembly of republicans if the **** ever does hit the fan again. Forgetting (or maybe you didn't know) that the GFA is enshrined in our constitution.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes it is, that's a fact.


It's not ours we have no God given right to the entire island. The people who own Northern Ireland are not the British they are the people of Northern Ireland and only they will decide their future. Not you not me not London not Dublin they themselves. Whether you like that or not.


I'm not but I love how you use the term as an insult. I guess to you it is.


Why not? If they are a different people then they are a different nation and nations have a demarcated territory. In this case the North East of Ireland called Northern Ireland.


That's nice to know but it's irrelevant. The Irish can practice their culture in the UK.


And what if the majority decide to outlaw homosexuality. Or expel foreign nationals. To have true democracy you must limit the democratic rights of the majority to discriminate against the minority. We have this at the moment in Ireland were homosexuals cannot get married because the majority don't allow them.


Which is why a compromise was needed. A good deal is one where both parties walk away unhappy.


Yeah I remember learning in school Dermot was the devil too. Don't believe everything your teachers told you. The Normans would have invaded anyway sooner or later.


So you blame the entire colonial history of our country on one man? You have a very simplistic view of history. You probably think Pearse was a saint who did no wrong in his life.

It's quite obvious that you are quite fecked in the head, a cantankerous belligerent type, and given to disagreement for the sake of disagreement. I see no point in trying to further convince you of your deeply flawed and erroneous take on the British invasion and colonisation of Ireland, as you are the best pro-imperialist collaborator the Brits could ever hope for.

If you are not a Unionist, you should seriously think of conversion, as no true Irishman could be responsible for the pro-imperialist cr@p you have strewn across this forum. You are an absolute disgrace, and do not have any right to call yourself an Irishman.

woodoo

gallag wrote: »

This is sad reading, amazing people are for ethnic cleansing of my people. I should stop reading this forum least I change from moderate unionist to hard core loyalist. My fear of a U.I grows.

Its amazing what one person can do to an opinion. Only one person on this thread called for ethnic cleansing. Keep the toys in the pram

woodoo

Bertie Woot wrote: »

not all Irishmen have abandoned the very legitimate aspiration of Irish reunification.

You are of course correct. There will always be people looking to unify this island. That will never go away.

Iwasfrozen

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It's quite obvious that you are quite fecked in the head, a cantankerous belligerent type, and given to disagreement for the sake of disagreement. I see no point in trying to further convince you of your deeply flawed and erroneous take on the British invasion and colonisation of Ireland, as you are the best pro-imperialist collaborator the Brits could ever hope for.

If you are not a Unionist, you should seriously think of conversion, as no true Irishman could be responsible for the pro-imperialist cr@p you have strewn across this forum. You are an absolute disgrace, and do not have any right to call yourself an Irishman.

Oh wow, if you can't discuss the issues throw insults around. I never insulted you.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You are an absolute disgrace, and do not have any right to call yourself an Irishman.

ANd what gives you the right to determine whose Irish and not Irish? Your views on British Imperialism and "occupation of the six counties" is out dated nonsense. Get over it. If a referendum is called the people will vote and I'd put my house on it not passing either side of the border once a proper informed debate is had, and puts the romanticism of a United Ireland to bed.

LordSutch

Bertie Woot wrote: »

It's quite obvious that you are quite fecked in the head, a cantankerous belligerent type, and given to disagreement for the sake of disagreement. I see no point in trying to further convince you of your deeply flawed and erroneous take on the British invasion and colonisation of Ireland, as you are the best pro-imperialist collaborator the Brits could ever hope for.

If you are not a Unionist, you should seriously think of conversion, as no true Irishman could be responsible for the pro-imperialist cr@p you have strewn across this forum. You are an absolute disgrace, and do not have any right to call yourself an Irishman.

Phew, thats some attack there on Iwas Bertie Woot, and I must say, if he is a Unionist then you are not doing a very good job of trying to persuade him of the merits of a United Ireland, and if hes not a Unionist, then why cant he hold views like he does anyway, in this day and age?

And what interesting language you use, like pro-imperialist, collaborator, British invasion, colonisation, fecked in the head, cantankerous belligerent, etc etc etc . . .

You sound like a very angry young man Bertie whose still living in a pre 1998 (good friday agreement) mindset!

SoulandForm

Depressing thread.

The thing is if the opinion polls are to be believed a lot of the "CNR" community now supports Northern Ireland remaining in the UK. How much of this change is brought on by them thinking that the Brits will allow them once they are a majority to "get revenge on the Prods" in the way they would never be allowed to do with Dublin in charge? Something for people to think on remembering how the Brits- meaning the London establishment- use Roman Catholic fears of their Protestant neighbours against Scotland getting her freedom just as they used Protestant fears against Ireland getting her freedom.

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
Some of these posts are tending to get a bit "too personal." Please challenge post, not poster per charter.

awec

This post has been deleted.

awec

This post has been deleted.

ardmacha

How much of this change is brought on by them thinking that the Brits will allow them once they are a majority to "get revenge on the Prods" in the way they would never be allowed to do with Dublin in charge?

This is one of the most bizarre posts in this forum and that is saying something.

Northern Ireland is an economic basket case and this means that people want to see a plan as to how things will add up. No need for bizarre conspiracy theories.

COYW

awec wrote: »

You want to force a UI against the will of the people?

It has become pretty clear since the poll last week that the answer to that question is 100% yes. Supporters of a UI foolishly thought that a vote for a republican party was a guaranteed vote for a UI. The poll last week was a massive shock to their system. If you need proof of this look at Gerry Kelly's reaction on Spotlight when he saw the breakdown of the votes. He was gobsmacked at the thought that a good proportion of SF voters don't want a UI.

The wishes of the people in N.I. or any other part of the British Isles counts for nothing when it comes to a UI in republicans eyes.

dienbienphu

COYW wrote: »

The wishes of the people in N.I. or any other part of the British Isles counts for nothing when it comes to a UI in republicans eyes.

The British never cared about the wishes of the Irish people to begin with. This argument lies at the heart of Irish Republicanism.

old hippy

dienbienphu wrote: »

The British never cared about the wishes of the Irish people to begin with. This argument lies at the heart of Irish Republicanism.

Ancient, very ancient, history.

That is what lies at the heart of Irish Republicanism. And Ulster unionism, come to think of it.

And that history and the constant, never ending regurgitation of it is why we are where we are.

blatantrereg

SoulandForm wrote: »

Depressing thread.

The thing is if the opinion polls are to be believed a lot of the "CNR" community now supports Northern Ireland remaining in the UK. How much of this change is brought on by them thinking that the Brits will allow them once they are a majority to "get revenge on the Prods" in the way they would never be allowed to do with Dublin in charge? Something for people to think on remembering how the Brits- meaning the London establishment- use Roman Catholic fears of their Protestant neighbours against Scotland getting her freedom just as they used Protestant fears against Ireland getting her freedom.

England wanted to implement home rule in Ireland before the Easter Rising. They tried to. Protestants in Northern Ireland promised to march on Dublin Castle if they did. Northern Irish protestants expressed fears about the influence of the Roman Catholic church on Ireland if home rule came to pass, however I don't think that fear was sown by England.

It was in England's interest to implement home rule at the time - Ireland was costing them money. Home Rule would have allowed them to save on costs. It also would have allowed them keep enough influence to prevent Ireland being used as a base for attacks on Britain, a concern which was certainly a primary motivation for them colonising Ireland in the first place, and also maintaining the presence here historically. [Ireland had been used as a base for attempted invasions before by dispossessed Anglo Saxon lords. More dangerously, Norman lords were in the process of colonising at the same time.]

Irish protestants in the south were in favour of home rule also, and many major proponents were protestant, as has already been noted, such as Parnell and O'Connell.

I find it interesting to try to compare the Norman invasion of England with the English invasion of Ireland. There were similarities: Change of the language and religion; Dispossession of the native lords in favour of the invading ones; Punishment of rebellions with further dispossession. So why did England accept Norman rule comparatively easily? I think the differentiator was that England was still ruled from England, even if it was by a foreign ruler. England would have been better-advised to have set up home rule from the start - left an Irish kingdom with independence in domestic affairs.

delthedriver

old hippy wrote: »

Ancient, very ancient, history.

That is what lies at the heart of Irish Republicanism. And Ulster unionism, come to think of it.

And that history and the constant, never ending regurgitation of it is why we are where we are.

Agree totally.
All the romantic ideals of republicanism and unionism should be confined to the old history books.
Joe Public does not give a stuff about historical crap.
We are a small State within the European Union.
It is all about economic survival
Time to grow up once and for all

SoulandForm

blatantrereg wrote: »

England wanted to implement home rule in Ireland before the Easter Rising. They tried to. Protestants in Northern Ireland promised to march on Dublin Castle if they did. Northern Irish protestants expressed fears about the influence of the Roman Catholic church on Ireland if home rule came to pass, however I don't think that fear was sown by England.

It was in England's interest to implement home rule at the time - Ireland was costing them money. Home Rule would have allowed them to save on costs. It also would have allowed them keep enough influence to prevent Ireland being used as a base for attacks on Britain, a concern which was certainly a primary motivation for them colonising Ireland in the first place, and also maintaining the presence here historically. [Ireland had been used as a base for attempted invasions before by dispossessed Anglo Saxon lords. More dangerously, Norman lords were in the process of colonising at the same time.]

Irish protestants in the south were in favour of home rule also, and many major proponents were protestant, as has already been noted, such as Parnell and O'Connell.
.

O'Connell wasnt a Protestant and was in favour of intergrating Ireland as much as possible into the Empire.

The point needs to be made seriously that the Liberal Party was in favour of Home Rule for Ireland but the Tories very much opposed it- until recently they were known as the Conservative and Unionist Party. When Enoch Powell was booted out of the Tories he joined Ulster Unionist Party. There were sections of the English elite that very much supported the whipping up of sectarian hysteria against Home Rule by Carson and Craig as seen in the Curragh mutiny.

Good post though.

dienbienphu

old hippy wrote: »

Ancient, very ancient, history.

That is what lies at the heart of Irish Republicanism. And Ulster unionism, come to think of it.

And that history and the constant, never ending regurgitation of it is why we are where we are.

Tbh if you have nothing constructive to offer then why post?

awec

This post has been deleted.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh wow, if you can't discuss the issues throw insults around. I never insulted you.

I wasn't insulting you, just putting across my point of view in a no nonsense manner. And if you want to insult me that is your prerogative.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

ANd what gives you the right to determine whose Irish and not Irish? Your views on British Imperialism and "occupation of the six counties" is out dated nonsense. Get over it. If a referendum is called the people will vote and I'd put my house on it not passing either side of the border once a proper informed debate is had, and puts the romanticism of a United Ireland to bed.

Just because some people have lost sight of a long held aspiration for unification does not mean that everyone in the Republic or in NI has, or that it is outdated or lost cause.

LordSutch wrote: »

Phew, thats some attack there on Iwas Bertie Woot, and I must say, if he is a Unionist then you are not doing a very good job of trying to persuade him of the merits of a United Ireland, and if hes not a Unionist, then why cant he hold views like he does anyway, in this day and age?

And what interesting language you use, like pro-imperialist, collaborator, British invasion, colonisation, fecked in the head, cantankerous belligerent, etc etc etc . . .

You sound like a very angry young man Bertie whose still living in a pre 1998 (good friday agreement) mindset!

Like I've already said, not everyone has abandoned the legitimate Nationalist aspiration for Irish unification. Putting forth strong opinions is not a crime. Neither is describing things as you perceive them. I have a right to my opinions as does everyone else, and if my opinions are different to yours then I have the right to disagree and vice versa and using whatever language I choose.

old hippy

dienbienphu wrote: »

Tbh if you have nothing constructive to offer then why post?

As opposed to the tired, destructive postings from your good self?

philologos

dienbienphu wrote: »

Look at the type of behaviour loyalists have been involved in since the Union flag was restricted. Its just a sign of things to come. The PSNI will have a war on two fronts

That presumes a United Ireland is coming. The support for it is at an all time low on both sides of the border.

Do you think this will ever happen?

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

It wasnt meant as an insult mate- it was to point out that for Loyalists you are not much different from a raving Republican and that they would happily kill you and your family. Remember the Dublin bombings?

Well, from the origin of your post it was clear to me that your reference towards loyality you meant loyality towards Irish Republicanism. Now you´ve come up with the Loyalists. This gives your recent post another point of view.

You might know as I do, that all these "taking sides" will never lead to what you desire to achieve. That United Ireland will either become reality by mutual compromise and consent, or it will never happen.

It only worked once that the Irish were able to force the UK into negotiations by force and that was during the Irish War of Independence. It won´t happen a second time and even that dubious "left-wing" UK government wouldn´t dropp NI for good to satisfy the demands of Irish Republicans.

Most people on these boards, advocating a UI have some various thoughts on how this could, would or will be achieved, but when it comes to concrete matters on the shape of that new state, there is either nothing, less or just some vague and generlized expression to read.

If you would just for a minute consider what a unification would bring with it, regarding shiftings in jobs alterations in the public sector and many more that such an event would affect, then you´d see that the matter is more complex in reality than in the focus of first achieve the unification and the other things are to be done afterwards. In such an event I think it´d be better to be prepared. Therefore I´m in agreement with the proposals Crooked Jack made in his posts on other threads.

A main thing that means also something to me is the place the Unionists / Loyalists would have in this UI. I´ve more the perception that these question is either downplayed or completely ignored, depending on the poster from the nationalist / republican faction on these boards. To me its for sure, you can´t have that UI without them and the better they´re imbedded the more likely a compromise could be reached (maybe).

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

It's not about making me British, I just think its ironic that the descendent of a republican hero is in fact anathema to everything they believe in.

I don´t believe in any ideologies and views that come from that, because they´re always one-sided. Therefore it´s no surprise to me what you´ve told me in your post. Most of it appears to be "well selected", how could it be otherwise when creating an political ideology? You need the myths, you need the heros and you need the martyrs. Some of them who gave their lifes for the cause they were fighting for, might had have some "second thoughts", others did not. Their legacy is left to interpretation, or to some bickerings like on here. Easy to say that they were heros because they died for Ireland, no questions asked about the family they left behind in a time without social welfare they had to cope with that and even the help of the republican community couldn´t replace the fallen men. This might had been some similiar in the case of your republican ancestor.

It´s quite interesting to me to learn that you´re a member of the British Army. Gives me some food for considerations about that theory of an UI which more people on here seem to don´t want to have it. Thanks for that because it´s an aspect to put into account regarding the huge shiftings an unification would bring with it.

It´s interesting to think about an UI in theory, but I always bear in mind that this issue is far more complex than any theory can work out, just in the light of which of these alterations would stand the test in reality.

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

Well, from the origin of your post it was clear to me that your reference towards loyality you meant loyality towards Irish Republicanism. Now you´ve come up with the Loyalists. This gives your recent post another point of view.

You do you realize that Tea egg/Taig is Loyalist slang for a Republican dont you?

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

You do you realize that Tea egg/Taig is Loyalist slang for a Republican dont you?

Of course not, how should I know that? I´m not familiar with their slang.

Thomas_I

LordSutch wrote: »

Question for all those who crave a so called 'United Ireland'.

What exactly would it mean in the most basic terms? for example, would it mean converting the Unionist/Loyalist population to your way of thinking, or would the Nationalist/Republican goal be to outnumber "The Brits" in order to bring about a United Ireland by way of sidetracking the Unionists and getting the numbers to make it impossible for the North to stay in the Union?

Finally, what exactly would the advantage be in extracting Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom in practical terms?
Like any forseeable headaches for us if the border was dissolved?

I´ve put some similar questions in some of my posts too. There´s no direct answer coming forward and from my observations it depends on the personal attitude of the poster. Some avoid to tell it straight forward but I think that they mean the unionists had to adopt.

AckwelFoley

Northern ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Most of us in the South accept this . Others don't. The key factors is that the vast majority of northern irelands citizns want to remain part of the UK. That includes a rather significant number of Catholics and most protestants.

Protestants are entitled to their heritage and northern ireland is part of it. Most people miss the fact that many loyalists and unionists feel threatened that their cultural identity is being eroded. This needs to be acknowledged

Thomas_I

AckwelFoley wrote: »

Northern ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Most of us in the South accept this . Others don't. The key factors is that the vast majority of northern irelands citizns want to remain part of the UK. That includes a rather significant number of Catholics and most protestants.

Protestants are entitled to their heritage and northern ireland is part of it. Most people miss the fact that many loyalists and unionists feel threatened that their cultural identity is being eroded. This needs to be acknowledged

It does, but it´s mostly being ignored and therefore there´s no way to convince them that they´d be better off in an UI.

SoulandForm

AckwelFoley wrote: »

Protestants are entitled to their heritage and northern ireland is part of it. Most people miss the fact that many loyalists and unionists feel threatened that their cultural identity is being eroded. This needs to be acknowledged

No Protestants dont, because it isnt- Loyalist bigots of the type who accused the Unionist Down Council of having an "anti-Protestant" agenda do. Anyway bonfires where they burn Tricolours and sectarian songs are not cultural expressions that should be protected which is largely what these people mean.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

No Protestants dont, because it isnt- Loyalist bigots of the type who accused the Unionist Down Council of having an "anti-Protestant" agenda do. Anyway bonfires where they burn Tricolours and sectarian songs are not cultural expressions that should be protected which is largely what these people mean.

Have you ever tried to consider these things from the perspective of an unionist or loyalist to get NI into a UI?

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

Have you ever tried to consider these things from the perspective of an unionist or loyalist to get NI into a UI?

I used to be a unionist with a small u until I moved away and started think about and study things clearly.

As long as the six counties remain occupied its going to be an economically backwards sectarian dump to a greater or lesser extent- at the moment it looks like its going to be that to a great extent.

I dont think being understanding to people who sing about being up to their knecks in fenian blood and consider burning Irish and Polish flags on bonfires culture is going to work somehow.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

I used to be a unionist with a small u until I moved away and started think about and study things clearly.

Are you serious in telling me that or is it just some distraction?

Honestly I´ve a more different perception of the political place of yours. If what you´ve said is true, then you´d have an 180 degrees turn a round done.

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

Are you serious in telling me that or is it just some distraction?

Honestly I´ve a more different perception of the political place of yours. If what you´ve said is true, then you´d have an 180 degrees turn a round done.

No because in Northern Ireland people usually just go with tribal thinking without seriously thinking about- when I started thinking seriously about it I dropped unionism; dropping something from your childhood that you passively accepted is not exactly doing an 180 degree turn.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

I used to be a unionist with a small u until I moved away and started think about and study things clearly.

As long as the six counties remain occupied its going to be an economically backwards sectarian dump to a greater or lesser extent- at the moment it looks like its going to be that to a great extent.

I dont think being understanding to people who sing about being up to their knecks in fenian blood and consider burning Irish and Polish flags on bonfires culture is going to work somehow.

Certainly not. My thoughts were more related to the trivial things in life, which are more important than this like work, housing and so on.

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

Certainly not. My thoughts were more related to the trivial things in life, which are more important than this like work, housing and so on.

But when Loyalists talk about their culture being under threat those are the things they mean.

Bertie Woot

SoulandForm wrote: »

I used to be a unionist with a small u until I moved away and started think about and study things clearly.

As long as the six counties remain occupied its going to be an economically backwards sectarian dump to a greater or lesser extent- at the moment it looks like its going to be that to a great extent.

I dont think being understanding to people who sing about being up to their knecks in fenian blood and consider burning Irish and Polish flags on bonfires culture is going to work somehow.

The old Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist notion of supremacy is outdated, a fallacy, and no longer relevant. The people who congregate at the 11th July bonfires, tanked up on booze, and sing songs cursing the tea-eggs and burn the Irish tricolour and an effigy of the pope are some of the most socially disadvantaged, backward, inward looking, marginalised and uneducated people on the planet. I should know. I was one of them.

Let's see if any of our Southern brethren read this and finally realise that I, someone who comes from the Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist community in Northern Ireland, am much more of an Irish Republican than most Southern Irishmen who have posted in this thread thus far, and who seem to have completely abandoned the aspiration of Irish unification and national self determination, if indeed they ever held that aspiration.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

But when Loyalists talk about their culture being under threat those are the things they mean.

What you´ve described as their culture isn´t any imo, it´s remindes me from the term of the songs you´ve mentioned more to some sinister from the fascists. But I don´t know these loyalists songs at all, I just know those Irish republican rebell songs. From what I´ve heard (referring to the traditional ones) there´s hardly one line related to unionists / loyalists as I recall it.

Happyman42

SoulandForm wrote: »

I used to be a unionist with a small u until I moved away and started think about and study things clearly.

As long as the six counties remain occupied its going to be an economically backwards sectarian dump to a greater or lesser extent- at the moment it looks like its going to be that to a great extent.

I dont think being understanding to people who sing about being up to their knecks in fenian blood and consider burning Irish and Polish flags on bonfires culture is going to work somehow.

Which is what is crucially missed or blissfully ignored by many on threads like this.
N.I. has failed, it cannot function without the continued and overt intervention of both British and Irish governments, therefore the discussion must move to what will take it's place sooner or later or we will spin into the black hole of violence again.
Britian will not be up for maintaining the Union, it now makes no sense and the divide between them and the Uninists fraternity has been blown asunder by years of beligerence and violence, they have shown that this will and can be turned on the very heart of what they want to stay unified with.
A seperate, independent N.I. will also fall apart very quickly, as it is economically unviable and both sections have shown clearly that they have great difficulty in sharing power.
The only future is in a union where the influences are diluted to such an extent that they don't adversely affect each other and that future is in a new republic. And those who genuinely want to see an end to the cycle of violence should be putting their weight behind that discussion if not pushing for a UI.
Yes it will be expensive, but so is the continued violence, yes it will be difficult but the rewards are manyfold and great.

SoulandForm

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The old Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist notion of supremacy is outdated, a fallacy, and no longer relevant. The people who congregate at the 11th July bonfires, tanked up on booze, and sing songs cursing the tea-eggs and burn the Irish tricolour and an effigy of the pope are some of the most socially disadvantaged, backward, inward looking, marginalised and uneducated people on the planet. I should know. I was one of them.

Sadly though its numbers are declining and have declined radically the Orange Order retains a grip on a lot of Unionist politicians who are members of it. There is sectarianism on the other side as well and a large part of the reason Northern Ireland has and always had the lowest wages in the UK is that ruling class have used and continue to use sectarian division to divide people and keep them from focusing on what unites them. The whole of the "Celtic fringe" has suffered because of the Union- Wales for instance should be one of the richest countries in Europe but instead its one of the poorest- but Northern Ireland has suffered in particular. When partition happened NI was way ahead of the south and now its very much behind it.

SoulandForm

I disagree with you about the London establishment not wanting to maintain the Union. I believe that they have a strong ideological commitment to it. I agree with you about an independent Northern Ireland not being able to function- I toyed with that idea once but if you look at the people who promote it they are the likes of Kenny McClinton and Willie Frazer. I would also be opposed to any regional autonomy for the six counties in a united Ireland because I would be distrustful of both "sides" to play fair. The only real solution is rule from Dublin with very tough anti-discrimination legislation.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is what is crucially missed or blissfully ignored by many on threads like this.
N.I. has failed, it cannot function without the continued and overt intervention of both British and Irish governments, therefore the discussion must move to what will take it's place sooner or later or we will spin into the black hole of violence again.
Britian will not be up for maintaining the Union, it now makes no sense and the divide between them and the Uninists fraternity has been blown asunder by years of beligerence and violence, they have shown that this will and can be turned on the very heart of what they want to stay unified with.
A seperate, independent N.I. will also fall apart very quickly, as it is economically unviable and both sections have shown clearly that they have great difficulty in sharing power.
The only future is in a union where the influences are diluted to such an extent that they don't adversely affect each other and that future is in a new republic. And those who genuinely want to see an end to the cycle of violence should be putting their weight behind that discussion if not pushing for a UI.
Yes it will be expensive, but so is the continued violence, yes it will be difficult but the rewards are manyfold and great.