Towards a United Ireland

Chuck Stone

COYW wrote: »

how do republicans plan to prevent the possibility (inevitable in my opinion) of unionists being treated like dirt in their (a republican) UI.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The only selfish view is the one that wants to needlessly plunge the country back into conflict.

Good old would-be unionist paranoia coupled with prescience is alive and well.

Bertie Woot

pablomakaveli wrote: »

But how will a UI make things anymore peaceful? A UI would bring about a far worse situation than the current one.

The terms of the GFA clearly state that there shall only be a UI when that is the democratic wish of the people of NI. That means that a majority of people (not necessarily a majority of Unionists) must vote in favour of reunification.

If that were to happen, and regardless of whether a majority of Unionists vote in favour or not, there would inevitably be resistance from paramilitant Loyalism, and that would undoubtedly cause a violent response from Republicans, realising that after 90 or more years of being locked inside a country they never wanted to be part of or see the creation of, the time was finally right to seize the opportunity and this time instead of imposing a united Ireland upon an NI majority who were opposed to reunification, they would actually be acting to implement the democratic wishes of the people.

There shall be more violence in Northern Ireland before NI ceases to exist with the act of reunification. But then look at how the Republic was brought into being - via resistance, conflict and civil war. And just like after the creation of the 26 county Republic, after the storm there shall come acceptance and calm, when Unionism is finally defeated. Yes, that's what it's going to take, and Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen had the right idea.

pablomakaveli

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The terms of the GFA clearly state that there shall only be a UI when that is the democratic wish of the people of NI. That means that a majority of people (not necessarily a majority of Unionists) must vote in favour of reunification.

If that were to happen, and regardless of whether a majority of Unionists vote in favour or not, there would inevitably be resistance from paramilitant Loyalism, and that would undoubtedly cause a violent response from Republicans, realising that after 90 or more years of being locked inside a country they never wanted to be part of or see the creation of, the time was finally right to seize the opportunity and this time instead of imposing a united Ireland upon an NI majority who were opposed to reunification, they would actually be acting to implement the democratic wishes of the people.

There shall be more violence in Northern Ireland before NI ceases to exist with the act of reunification. But then look at how the Republic was brought into being - via resistance, conflict and civil war. And just like after the creation of the 26 county Republic, after the storm there shall come acceptance and calm, when Unionism is finally defeated. Yes, that's what it's going to take, and Wolfe Tone had the right idea.

Times have changed though and no one wants to go back to the days of the Troubles. Is a UI worth paying a massive blood price? I dont think so and its frankly horrifying that you seem happy to accept that price.

Chuck Stone

Bertie Woot wrote: »

there would inevitably be resistance from paramilitant Loyalism, and that would undoubtedly cause a violent response from Republicans

I don't believe there has to be violence at all or at least it could be minimal. The idea that the north would subsumed into 26 counties overnight is a bit fanciful. Most likely there be an incremental transition.

Also, if there was violent resistance from Loyalists, who would it be against and what business would it be of Republicans? It would be a security problem for the 32 country state rather than a problem for Republicans to quell.

maccored

COYW wrote: »

And what do you plan on doing with all the people who will have to lose their job, as a result of the removal of all of this duplication? Not really, a job that goes to Belfast instead of Dublin would still be a job lost for Dublin. The Dublin person would still be unemployed. NI is not match for us in terms of FDI at the moment.

I still fail to see one economic benefit from a UI. Actually, from your points above we would be better off unifying with the UK, under the crown or staying as we are.

As I said above, I don't see how it would save money. I believe it will cost money, unless you plan on making thousands of civil servants disappear or you severely cut the social welfare they would be paid. If you keep them within the public sector, doing other work, it would result in an astronomical public sector pay bill. You would need to implement drastic contract cuts to balance the books in that event.

Considering I'd see the whole process taking decades, people wouldnt be losing jobs. As the old structure is torn down piece by piece, the new All Ireland replacement would be brought into place - again piece by piece. yes, less people overall would be employed, but then again considering the length of time the complete process would make the excess staff would be retiring anyway. A united ireland would be a massive project maybe taking more than a century to complete - and though it would need very detailed planning, its still possible to do. Employing less people to run the country saves money. I cant see how you can argue against that.

Re-unification with the UK would solve that problem for us and leave us in a far strong position in economic terms. We would be free from the Euro. As per above, removing the excesses in the public sector means redundancies. How do you plan on addressing this?

First - reunification with Britain. yeah that worked wonders in the past :rolleyes: Second- as already explained .. what redundancies? If you're confused, re-read what I posted at the start of this post.

As for tourism, I think a UI would have the little effect on tourism. The notion that more people will flock to Ireland because it is united is idealistic nonsense. Both NI and ROI are bleeding as much from tourism as they can at the moment.

Blending two places into one - especially when its Ireland with its history - is a sure-fire way to attract tourists. Are you telling me you cant see the marketing potential in that?

Bertie Woot

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Times have changed though and no one wants to go back to the days of the Troubles. Is a UI worth paying a massive blood price? I dont think so and its frankly horrifying that you seem happy to accept that price.

Ideally I would like to see a smooth and peaceful transition to a 32 county Irish Republic, but as I come from the Unionist community, I know from first hand life experience the strength of fierce opposition to a UI.

Opposition to a UI lies at the very core of Ulster Unionism. The great majority of them will never even contemplate a UI, and no matter how many clever or convincing arguments and reassurances Irish Republicans put forward.

Unionists are psychologically and emotionally attached to Britain on a very deep level, and no amount of plausible economic arguments shall ever sway them. If you told the Unionist majority in NI that a UI would deliver higher wages, raised living standards and unprecedented prosperity, they would still continue to resist a united Ireland, and that is something which Republicans in Sinn Fein are going to find out.

I'm not happy about the prospect of further bloodshed, I'd like to see that being avoided at all costs, as it is my people who are going to perish. But I'm a realist, and I know that unless a significant number within Unionism look destiny in the eye, accept that British involvement in Ireland is in its closing stages, and cease to continue viewing consenting to a UI as "surrender", their long entrenched mindset shall compel them to forcefully resist the implementation of a UI through use of arms, and that shall inevitably cause Republicans to respond accordingly.

I don't want to go there. No-one does. But this hypothesis shall be confirmed unless the Unionist mindset alters radically.

Ziphius

What convinced you, Bertie Woot?

Bertie Woot

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't believe there has to be violence at all or at least it could be minimal. The idea that the north would subsumed into 26 counties overnight is a bit fanciful. Most likely there be an incremental transition.

Also, if there was violent resistance from Loyalists, who would it be against and what business would it be of Republicans? It would be a security problem for the 32 country state rather than a problem for Republicans to quell.

Unionists have demonstrated their capacity to oppose the British state. They did it in 1921, with the Ulster Workers Council strike in 1974 against the Sunningdale Agreement, and of course came out in massive numbers against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

They shall oppose any move toward Irish reunification. They shall oppose British state forces who attempt to implement a reunification agreement, and they shall most certainly oppose Irish state forces should they decide to traipse across the border.

Realistically, I don't think that militant Republicans shall stand by and do nothing.

Bertie Woot

Ziphius wrote: »

What convinced you, Bertie Woot?

What convinced me on what?

Ziphius

Bertie Woot wrote: »

What convinced me on what?

A united Ireland. You said you came from a Unionist background. I'm interested in what convinced you to change your opinion.

Perhaps you have mentioned this before, apologies if so.

Chuck Stone

Bertie Woot wrote: »

They shall oppose any move toward Irish reunification. They shall oppose British state forces who attempt to implement a reunification agreement, and they shall most certainly oppose Irish state forces should they decide to traipse across the border.

So they'd be positioning themselves in opposition to Ireland and Britain? Really, the more inflamed the north would become the more eager the British would be to be rid of it. What then?

An Coilean

If people really want to go down the road of making the peace process in the North a barrier to the achievement of a UI go right ahead, just remember that there are people in the North right now making that very argument. They don't have much support right now but if they are proved right, that could change.

Maintaining the status quo may seem the safest option now, but it is no surity of indefinate peace and it may well prove to be its eventual undoing.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

If people really want to go down the road of making the peace process in the North a barrier to the achievement of a UI go right ahead, just remember that there are people in the North right now making that very argument. They don't have much support right now but if they are proved right, that could change.

Maintaining the status quo may seem the safest option now, but it is no surity of indefinate peace and it may well prove to be its eventual undoing.

The status quo is a hell of a lot safer then a UI. At least we know this way works. I'm not going to vote to change that so touch can redraw a line on the map.

pablomakaveli

An Coilean wrote: »

If people really want to go down the road of making the peace process in the North a barrier to the achievement of a UI go right ahead, just remember that there are people in the North right now making that very argument. They don't have much support right now but if they are proved right, that could change.

Maintaining the status quo may seem the safest option now, but it is no surity of indefinate peace and it may well prove to be its eventual undoing.

Except at least with the status quo there is also the chance that things will work out ok and NI will get better as the years go on. We know there will be a bloodbath if a UI is pushed so why the hell wouldnt we go with the safer option.

Its only a case of Republicans wanting the UI for the sake of it. Its amazing the mental gymnastics they do to justify it.

Iwasfrozen

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Except at least with the status quo there is also the chance that things will work out ok and NI will get better as the years go on. We know there will be a bloodbath if a UI is pushed so why the hell wouldnt we go with the safer option.

Its only a case of Republicans wanting the UI for the sake of it. Its amazing the mental gymnastics they do to justify it.

That's the thing, without unification as the years go on more and more republicans are going to become disillusioned with the idea of a UI or think it isn't possible. Actually this is the best thing that could happen. The shouts for a UI will still be there but every year they will get that bit quieter.

johnnydeep

junder wrote: »

You tell me why it's unionist fault since you are then one blaming us. And why shouldn't republicans respect me I am not, nor have i ever been a paramilitary, I have never murdered, I have never been to prison, I am not sectarian, racist, sexist or homophobic, I am just a human being who has an opposing lawful view point if that can't be respected, what can and since respect is the baseline for any meaningful dialogue, without it there is no point in trying

unionist fault - somebody breaks into your house robs you and throws you out and wont leave.you are down on your knees that's bad enough, they spend the next 5 hundred years kicking you down every time you try to get up. they do this with the support of the biggest richest army in the world.
you have never been a paramilitary. but presumably know plenty did you report these and there activities to the police.
you are not sectarian or racist. so presumably you are not a member of the orange order or do not attend any of their events.
you are lawful, hopefully you will remain so and be a productive and happy member of a 32 county republic of ireland

SoulandForm

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Unionists are psychologically and emotionally attached to Britain on a very deep level, and no amount of plausible economic arguments shall ever sway them. If you told the Unionist majority in NI that a UI would deliver higher wages, raised living standards and unprecedented prosperity, they would still continue to resist a united Ireland, and that is something which Republicans in Sinn Fein are going to find out.

Im psychologically attached to parts of Britain on a deep level but there is a difference between that and being psychologically attached to the British state. I know what you mean though.

Bertie Woot

Ziphius wrote: »

A united Ireland. You said you came from a Unionist background. I'm interested in what convinced you to change your opinion.

Perhaps you have mentioned this before, apologies if so.

I can't provide a short answer to this question as it's a fundamental one, so bear with me.

I grew up in a Protestant working class area of Belfast and lived through "the troubles". The writing on the wall was literally "F**k the IRA", "No Surrender" and "Remember 1690". There was also "UVF", "UFF" and "F**k the Pope". I was born in 1968, the year the troubles began, and knew nothing of peace until 1994 and the ceasefires. My attitude towards Irish Republicans was one of animosity, as they were attempting to destroy my country and were murdering my fellow countrymen.

A friend of mine, a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment (a regiment of the British Army), was blown to pieces by a Provisional IRA bomb which was left for his army patrol at Royal Avenue, Belfast. I grew up on a steady diet of violence, knew nothing but violence, and when peace came about it felt abnormal and frightening, as we had known nothing but violence all of our lives. But I welcomed peace and supported the Good Friday Agreement in the referendum.

I also grew up in total ignorance of all that had come before that beginning of the PIRA's campaign. I knew nothing of Irish history, as we weren't taught it at school, I knew nothing of discrimination and the civil rights movement, as people where I lived just didn't talk about it. I would still know nothing if I hadn't picked up some books and began reading. As a kid, every year I collected wood for the 11th of July bonfire, walked to the field on the 12th of July with a Loyalist flute band to celebrate the victory of King William III of Orange over the Catholic King James II at the battle of the Boyne, and I didn't analyse or question my national, religious and cultural identity. I accepted who and what I was; an Ulster Protestant, a Unionist, and descended from British colonial settlers of the Ulster plantation. I accepted and still accept who I am and where I come from and my people's place in the history of this island.

In my late teens I began to read deeper into Irish history and through learning developed social consciousness and indeed a social conscience. I also developed class consciousness and became a Socialist, viewing the Northern Irish conflict as working class Catholics murdering working class Protestants and vice versa. It seemed to me that working class Catholics and Protestants had more in common with eachother than they did with their middle class counterparts, and that the traditional Unionist/Nationalist divide in NI sidelined a very conspicuous yet ignored class divide.

Unionism was right-wing, conservative and pro-capitalist in nature, I wasn't. The traditional Unionist parties did not entertain class politics, Republicanism on the other hand, did. I did not however agree with Republican violence, so could find no affiliation with Republicans during their terrorist campaign, which I viewed as "futile". As it turned out, I was right.

Most Unionists don't think, they don't want to think, and among the Protestant working class there is virtually a culture of antipathy towards higher education. I broke the mould in my area, went to University, and discovered that most students were from a Nationalist background, that the University of Ulster had a Gaelic ethos, and realised that the next generation of middle class professionals in Northern Ireland were going to be Irish Nationalists, not Ulster Unionists.

Unionism was facing the biggest challenge to its position in NI with the ceasefires and the negotiations which led up to the Good friday agreement, yet I could not relate to or identify with all of the Irish Republican talk of Unionist "dominance" and "supremacy", as I was from a working class background and thus a position of social disadvantage and socioeconomic inferiority. My parents weren't wealthy, we lived in a terraced house, and my father was a semi-skilled manual worker who earned a subsistence salary. So this notion of "Unionist supremacy" was a generalisation and a fallacy to me. The Unionist-Protestant working class in NI have experienced just as much financial hardship as the Nationalist-Republican-Catholic working class, but unlike most Protestants, I was prepared to acknowledge the fact that discrimination against the Nationalist Catholic people had also occurred, and that it was perpetrated out of fear of the Nationalist "enemy within" by a Unionist government which was before my time and thus did not represent me.

I was angry with middle class Unionists in a position of political power for having discriminated against the Nationalist Catholic people in employment, housing, and having gerrymandered the voting system to exclude nationalists from political power. I resented them for having brought about the civil rights movement and effectively provided Irish Republicans with a reason to wage war upon my generation. I still resent Unionism for having made my childhood, teenage years and young adulthood abnormal. Most contemporary Unionists however shall not blame Unionism 1921-1968 for anything, as they would view criticism as an act of betrayal. Consequently, Unionism still has not accepted responsibility for the wrongs it inflicted upon Irish Nationalist Catholics in NI. Equally, Sinn Fein still has not apologised for the pain and hurt their violent campaign inflicted upon the Unionist community.

I remember a time when the thought of Irish Republicans and Unionists sharing political power in an egalitarian Northern Ireland was a preposterous notion. I remember when Unionists would not talk to Sinn Fein and when Sinn Fein and the PIRA were dedicated to armed struggle. I remember the bombs going off in Belfast City centre; the murders, killings and the debris. I remember when the concept of peace in Northern Ireland was a pipe-dream. Well, look where we are now. Peace, power-sharing and the political representatives of the Provisional IRA in a power-sharing coalition with Unionists in a devolved assembly at Stormont. All of this was totally unrealistic and unthinkable just 16 years ago.

On this basis, who is realistically going to tell me that there is never going to be a united Ireland?

We either learn from the past and agree to a shared future on this island or we return to war. Instead of running away from the risks of a united by relocating to England or Scotland, I chose to stay on the island I was born, and transfer my political allegiance from ungrateful Britain, my land of origin, to Ireland, my country of birth. I'm not expecting a single Unionist to follow suit, as most are still under the deluded impression that England wants NI to remain a part of the UK ad infinitum, that England cherishes their loyalty, and regards them as "British" citizens. My experience of the English has informed me that most English people would like nothing more than to sacrifice NI as we cost the English tax-payer too much under the current Barnett Formula, that they view NI as a "nuisance state", perceive Unionist Loyalty as gratuitous and outdated, and that they view all Northern Irish people as "Irish", not British, and regardless of whether you are a Unionist or a Nationalist.

I'd like to see Unionists realising that the mainland British, English in particular, don't give a **** about them, don't respect them, and that most have no time for them and their silly little squabble across the Irish sea that has caused many British soldiers to lose their lives.

I also view the British Monarchy as a relic of the past, unnecessary, and an embarrassing symbol of social inequality in hierarchical class obsessed British society. I do however understand Unionist's historical respect for the British Monarchy, and respect their right to continue to pay homage to the most privileged family in England.

Ideally however, I'd like to see Unionists overcoming their insecurity and their deep psychological and emotional attachment to their country of origin, and in doing so come to terms with the fact that they are Irish and that the destiny of Ireland lies in reunification. It shall be possible to be an Irish person of British ancestry in a pluralist reunified Ireland, and indeed to practice one's culture and nurture one's identity.

I understand the Unionist hang-up on reunification. They view reunification as offering nothing only the threat of discrimination and persecution for a colonial past and Unionist misrule in Northern Ireland. I share their concerns, but I am prepared to enter a UI so long as there are safeguards, assurances and guarantees embedded within a reunification agreement that shall protect Protestants from persecution, and provide a means for British governmental intervention should discrimination come about.

I've already experienced discrimination in the workplace and consequently know what it's like to feel like a second class citizen. I never want that to happen again.

Iwasfrozen

johnnydeep wrote: »

unionist fault - somebody breaks into your house robs you and throws you out and wont leave.you are down on your knees that's bad enough, they spend the next 5 hundred years kicking you down every time you try to get up. they do this with the support of the biggest richest army in the world.
you have never been a paramilitary. but presumably know plenty did you report these and there activities to the police.
you are not sectarian or racist. so presumably you are not a member of the orange order or do not attend any of their events.
you are lawful, hopefully you will remain so and be a productive and happy member of a 32 county republic of ireland

Christ are we on the 800 years already. I had no idea you were alive since tudor times. You must be the oldest man in the world.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Christ are we on the 800 years already. I had no idea you were alive since tudor times. You must be the oldest man in the world.

It's a lot more recent than that if you'd open your eyes, the flag beligerence isn't even a throwback because that suprematist thinking is still deep in the pores. Just because they aren't allowed away with it anymore, because of the GFA, doesn't mean that it has disappeared.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's a lot more recent than that if you'd open your eyes, the flag beligerence isn't even a throwback because that suprematist thinking is still deep in the pores. Just because they aren't allowed away with it anymore, because of the GFA, doesn't mean that it has disappeared.

He never mentioned the flag issue and neither did I, you're the only one who brought that up.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

He never mentioned the flag issue and neither did I, you're the only one who brought that up.

As an example of the same kind of thinking occuring today. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

But how will a UI make things anymore peaceful? A UI would bring about a far worse situation than the current one.

I don't think so because by the time it gets here, most will have been convinced or will be willing to give it a go.
I don't want a UI without fundamental changes in the way we are governed. I think Unionists have a lot to offer to a new concensus and country. Yes there will be diehards, but where will support for them come from in a practical way. It's a much more difficult world to move arms around in and with Britain/America hostile to them and eager to see a UI work, it would be very difficult to sustain any campaign.

junder

johnnydeep wrote: »

unionist fault - somebody breaks into your house robs you and throws you out and wont leave.you are down on your knees that's bad enough, they spend the next 5 hundred years kicking you down every time you try to get up. they do this with the support of the biggest richest army in the world.
you have never been a paramilitary. but presumably know plenty did you report these and there activities to the police.
you are not sectarian or racist. so presumably you are not a member of the orange order or do not attend any of their events.
you are lawful, hopefully you will remain so and be a productive and happy member of a 32 county republic of ireland

Presumably? Really? exactly how do you 'presume' that I would know anybody involved in a paramiltary group. Not a member of the orange order but am in the apprentice boys, so am
I sectarian, do you know me in pers

Gilbert Grape

junder wrote: »

Presumably? Really? exactly how do you 'presume' that I would know anybody involved in a paramiltary group. Not a member of the orange order but am in the apprentice boys, so am
I sectarian, do you know me in pers

Cut the bull****,of course you know someone that has been or is involved in some form,same can be said for myself and a lot of other people.If your in the apprentice boys,whenever yous are marching in Derry,i've witnessed yourselves spit and shout sectarian abuse at bystanders and worse.And by the way i have plenty of friend's from the protestant side.I my self was brought up catholic until i caught myself on that religion has a lot to answer for in the world.Children of both sides should be growing up together and going to school with each other for any hope of proper peace to have a chance,we are no different from each other we are just the same and have the same problems.

junder

johnnydeep wrote: »

unionist fault - somebody breaks into your house robs you and throws you out and wont leave.you are down on your knees that's bad enough, they spend the next 5 hundred years kicking you down every time you try to get up. they do this with the support of the biggest richest army in the world.
you have never been a paramilitary. but presumably know plenty did you report these and there activities to the police.
you are not sectarian or racist. so presumably you are not a member of the orange order or do not attend any of their events.
you are lawful, hopefully you will remain so and be a productive and happy member of a 32 county republic of ireland

Presumably? Really? exactly how do you 'presume' that I would know anybody involved in a paramiltary group. Not a member of the orange order but am in the apprentice boys, so am
I sectarian, do you know me in person or are you presuming that I am
Sectarian?

junder

Gilbert Grape wrote: »

Cut the bull****,of course you know someone that has been or is involved in some form,same can be said for myself and a lot of other people.If your in the apprentice boys,whenever yous are marching in Derry,i've witnessed yourselves spit and shout sectarian abuse at bystanders and worse.And by the way i have plenty of friend's from the protestant side.I my self was brought up catholic until i caught myself on that religion has a lot to answer for in the world.Children of both sides should be growing up together and going to school with each other for any hope of proper peace to have a chance,we are no different from each other we are just the same and have the same problems.

So what your saying is that you know people from paramilitary backgrounds, did you report them? Have you witnessed me spitting or abusing anybody or are you 'presuming' again. But hey you know what your talking about because apparently you have Protestant friends

SoulandForm

http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/guest-writers/2240-ulster-and-the-new-loyalist-anti-politics-phenomenon

"It may be as inconceivable to Ulster’s burgeoning new middle class as it is to most English people but many here in Ulster would far rather have a modest lifestyle and a strong loyalist culture than a highly paid job, big house and a weak loyalist culture! This is what few can grasp about the Ulster Protestant mindset. If it’s a choice between economic progression and our flag, the flag will win, every time! Our flag transcends and is above mere politics, it is a sacred representation of our historical/cultural and religious heritage and identity.

When we see the union flag we are emotionally connected as it represents the blood of our forefathers who defended it in every corner of the world. It also represents our honour and our faith, that's why most of our churches are the resting places of old military union standards. Our flag, even an old one, is to us, akin to a Holy relic that many would, without hesitation gladly sacrifice their life for, or for that matter, kill for!"

SoulandForm

Holy relics are kinda Roman Catholic or Orthodox are they not? Not very Protestant that.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't think so because by the time it gets here, most will have been convinced or will be willing to give it a go.
I don't want a UI without fundamental changes in the way we are governed. I think Unionists have a lot to offer to a new concensus and country. Yes there will be diehards, but where will support for them come from in a practical way. It's a much more difficult world to move arms around in and with Britain/America hostile to them and eager to see a UI work, it would be very difficult to sustain any campaign.

I dont think they'll ever be convinced. They haven't even warmed slightly to the idea of a UI since 1922 and i can't see that changing much in the next 100 years or even beyond that.

GRMA

junder wrote: »

Presumably? Really? exactly how do you 'presume' that I would know anybody involved in a paramiltary group. Not a member of the orange order but am in the apprentice boys, so am
I sectarian, do you know me in person or are you presuming that I am
Sectarian?

Of course you know members of a paramilitary group. You are in the biggest one yourself, the British Army, a group responsible for immense suffering and death. And you are a member of the Apprentice boys, and are on record as being a supporter of the PUP a group with concrete links to the UVF and Red Hand Commandos. They haven't gone away and are still active in all kinds of crime from murder, to drug dealing, to assault, intimidation etc etc. In fact the PUP voted in 2010 to remain affiliated with those groups despite both the leader and deputy leader resigning over the links with the UVF after they carried out a fully sanctioned murder.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/09/29/pup-to-debate-cutting-paramilitary-ties-this-evening/

Now, as loyalists go, you may be a decent head, but it is very easy to see how collusion happened if the likes of you with your political views and connections are allowed to be in the BA. But then again that was the point of Ulsterization.

A republican version of you, with the opposite views and connections that you have, would not get within an arses roar of the Irish Defense Forces.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

Of course you know members of a paramilitary group. You are in the biggest one yourself, the British Army, a group responsible for immense suffering and death. And you are a member of the Apprentice boys, and are on record as being a supporter of the PUP a group with concrete links to the UVF and Red Hand Commandos. They haven't gone away and are still active in all kinds of crime from murder, to drug dealing, to assault, intimidation etc etc. In fact the PUP voted in 2010 to remain affiliated with those groups despite both the leader and deputy leader resigning over the links with the UVF after they carried out a fully sanctioned murder.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/09/29/pup-to-debate-cutting-paramilitary-ties-this-evening/

Now, as loyalists go, you may be a decent head, but it is very easy to see how collusion happened if the likes of you with your political views and connections are allowed to be in the BA. But then again that was the point of Ulsterization.

A republican version of you, with the opposite views and connections that you have, would not get within an arses roar of the Irish Defense Forces.

A republican version of me? The British are not paramiltary, it's miltary, again you presume who or what I know, moreover since I am not involved in anything illegal, why should'nt I be allowed to be a member, just because my views are at odds with yours does not make them any less valid. However when I joined the army I made a promise to The state. I take my vows seriously

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I dont think they'll ever be convinced. They haven't even warmed slightly to the idea of a UI since 1922 and i can't see that changing much in the next 100 years or even beyond that.

Then you aren't watching very closely...lipservice is being paid to the old ideologies by political dinosaurs, while, mostly, cross border relationships are being developed in a very healthy and quiet way. There is the odd abberation like Sammy Wilson on cross border roads, but extremists like Wilson would be feeling under threat from moderates and is just trying to appeal to the last bastions of intolerance to save himself electorally.
I don't know where you live but if you lived where I do, on the border, then you would see just how much relationships among moderates are developing. What must not happen is stagnation and political impasse, for into that void will come the extremists. The process must keeping moving to a stable conclusion, it isn't complete yet, and more and more the border is becoming a nuisance to the 'everyday'.

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

A republican version of me? The British are is paramiltary, it's miltary, again you presume who or what I know, moreover since I am not involved in anything illegal, why should'nt I be allowed to be a member, just because my views are at odds with yours does not make them any less valid. However when I joined the army I made a promise to The state. I take my vows seriously

Gusty Spence is on record as saying that he saw his murder of Matilda Gould, a widow of 77, as being a continuation of the oath he took to protect the Crown when he entered the British Army. Of course he had previously being brutalized during his time serving in the BA during its dirty war in Cyprus.

SoulandForm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/27/brutality-british-forces-1950s-cyprus

This is why people serving in the British Army is the last thing that Northern Ireland needs and they have a strong tendency to bring the whole thing home with them.

GRMA

Do apprentice boys take vows?

SoulandForm

GRMA wrote: »

Do apprentice boys take vows?

No they dont have oaths but you have to confirm that you are a Protestant and I think also that you support the Crown. In fairness they are by far the least sinister of the Loyal Orders. I dont think its right to compare them to the Orange and the Black.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

Then you aren't watching very closely...lipservice is being paid to the old ideologies by political dinosaurs, while, mostly, cross border relationships are being developed in a very healthy and quiet way. There is the odd abberation like Sammy Wilson on cross border roads, but extremists like Wilson would be feeling under threat from moderates and is just trying to appeal to the last bastions of intolerance to save himself electorally.
I don't know where you live but if you lived where I do, on the border, then you would see just how much relationships among moderates are developing. What must not happen is stagnation and political impasse, for into that void will come the extremists. The process must keeping moving to a stable conclusion, it isn't complete yet, and more and more the border is becoming a nuisance to the 'everyday'.

Better cross border relations are to be welcomed but still mean nothing. Ive met lads from a unionist background and even though they could be considered moderate being part of a UI is still a repulsive idea to them just as much as having the Republic rejoin the UK would be to people south of the border.

The way forward for the process is for NI to focus on developing on its own as a more inclusive society where people view themselves as Northern Irish instead of defining themselves as British and Irish.

pablomakaveli

GRMA wrote: »

Of course you know members of a paramilitary group. You are in the biggest one yourself, the British Army, a group responsible for immense suffering and death. And you are a member of the Apprentice boys, and are on record as being a supporter of the PUP a group with concrete links to the UVF and Red Hand Commandos. They haven't gone away and are still active in all kinds of crime from murder, to drug dealing, to assault, intimidation etc etc. In fact the PUP voted in 2010 to remain affiliated with those groups despite both the leader and deputy leader resigning over the links with the UVF after they carried out a fully sanctioned murder.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/09/29/pup-to-debate-cutting-paramilitary-ties-this-evening/

Hysterical nonsense. He could judge you as having links to dissidents given your history of supporting the release of dissident prisoners and playing down dissident acts.

SoulandForm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Better cross border relations are to be welcomed but still mean nothing. Ive met lads from a unionist background and even though they could be considered moderate being part of a UI is still a repulsive idea to them just as much as having the Republic rejoin the UK would be to people south of the border.

The way forward for the process is for NI to focus on developing on its own as a more inclusive society where people view themselves as Northern Irish instead of defining themselves as British and Irish.

The British have always used sectarianism to control and govern the north of Ireland, and despite what ever nice words they may mouth from time to time, they are not going to stop now.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

Gusty Spence is on record as saying that he saw his murder of Matilda Gould, a widow of 77, as being a continuation of the oath he took to protect the Crown when he entered the British Army. Of course he had previously being brutalized during his time serving in the BA during its dirty war in Cyprus.

I am not gusty spence

pablomakaveli

SoulandForm wrote: »

The British have always used sectarianism to control and govern the north of Ireland, and despite what ever nice words they may mouth from time to time, they are not going to stop now.

And the forging of an inclusive Northern Irish identity would help end this. Even though there's no reason to incite secterianism anyway because that only makes life difficult for everyone again.

GRMA

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Hysterical nonsense. He could judge you as having links to dissidents given your history of supporting the release of dissident prisoners and playing down dissident acts.

Whats this?

I'm not a supporter of any group with links to paramilitaries, unlike our friend junder.

As I said, if there was a republican version of him with similar links to republicanism or republican groups, or historically sectarian catholic marching groups I wouldn't think they should be allowed to join the army.

You see no issue with someone like junder being in the BA? He might be alright but its people from that background which led to collusion.

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Better cross border relations are to be welcomed but still mean nothing. Ive met lads from a unionist background and even though they could be considered moderate being part of a UI is still a repulsive idea to them just as much as having the Republic rejoin the UK would be to people south of the border.

The way forward for the process is for NI to focus on developing on its own as a more inclusive society where people view themselves as Northern Irish instead of defining themselves as British and Irish.

Which doesn't solve or even address the constant barrier to complete peace. It's just kicking the can down the road, it will not work.
As to the Unionists you know, I'll bet they never thought that things would have moved as far as they did since the GFA. We are in a process, a process we stop or retard at our peril. We have a responsibility and that is the imperative.

pablomakaveli

GRMA wrote: »

Whats this?

I'm not a supporter of any group with links to paramilitaries, unlike our friend junder.

As I said, if there was a republican version of him with similar links to republicanism or republican groups, or historically sectarian catholic marching groups I wouldn't think they should be allowed to join the army.

You see no issue with someone like junder being in the BA? He might be alright but its people from that background which led to collusion.

Under your old Wolfe Tone account i remember you playing down a dissident planted bomb in Derry since it was only placed at the car park behind the bank if i remember correctly.

Or this thread. You say you dont agree with them but yet youre almost defending their position in that thread.

Again its a bit unfair to make serious accusations like that when applying the same reasoning to you we could level similiar accusations.

As a serving member of the BA as i may not agree with his beliefs but as long as he doesnt act on them or acts in a sectarian manner i have no problem with him being in the BA. You leave all that crap at the door when you join the army or you'll find you wont be in it for long.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which doesn't solve or even address the constant barrier to complete peace. It's just kicking the can down the road, it will not work.
As to the Unionists you know, I'll bet they never thought that things would have moved as far as they did since the GFA. We are in a process, a process we stop or retard at our peril. We have a responsibility and that is the imperative.

But why has this process have to move towards a UI? You seem to think that once we get a UI all our problems will just melt away. The process is a peace process. A process for creating peace in NI.

Happyman42

pablomakaveli wrote: »

But why has this process have to move towards a UI? You seem to think that once we get a UI all our problems will just melt away. The process is a peace process. A process for creating peace in NI.

It doesn't have to be, that is for those who want it to convince the others. But a new arrangement has to be arrived at. The status quo is too precarious and will not hold indefinetly, as I said, it is already breaking down on the fringes. For instance, what if Unionists are right and the IRA is indeed waiting in the wings? Is that a chance you are willing to take? The stakes and the price is very high.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

It doesn't have to be, that is for those who want it to convince the others. But a new arrangement has to be arrived at. The status quo is too precarious and will not hold indefinetly, as I said, it is already breaking down on the fringes. For instance, what if Unionists are right and the IRA is indeed waiting in the wings? Is that a chance you are willing to take? The stakes and the price is very high.

Then what do you propose? If we're agreed that a UI is not necessary then surely its just a matter of working within the current situation to make it work.

SoulandForm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And the forging of an inclusive Northern Irish identity would help end this. Even though there's no reason to incite secterianism anyway because that only makes life difficult for everyone again.

Its suits the British ruling class by keeping the living standards and wages of the working class down there (look at the levels of child poverty in the place) , by creating a source of violent and militant support for the its occupation and making the place an interesting sociological and in the past military test tube.

pablomakaveli

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its suits the British ruling class by keeping the living standards and wages of the working class down there (look at the levels of child poverty in the place) , by creating a source of violent and militant support for the its occupation and making the place an interesting sociological and in the past military test tube.

Thats just straying into CT nonsense. Especially when getting rid of NI would actually serve the British better than stoking a conflict that would cost them a lot.