Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Towards a United Ireland
Options
Comments
-
OCorcrainn wrote: »This is exactly the kind of mentality amongst Loyalists and Unionist that keeps dragging NI into the gutter and that sow division. Nobody lost, and it those kind of comments by you that highlight this confrontational and hostile attitude unionists have towards people who disagree with them, you turn something positive like the GFA into something you can rub in the faces of nationalists instead of getting along with them. You disappoint me.
Proberly could have worded it better, was being a little facetious0 -
Every objective the pira set itself it failed and now it disarmed does not sound like a victory to me. Sinn Fein and more importantly the dissidents know , the longer Northern Ireland remains stable, the further the prospect of a united ireland becomes
SF-IRA lost their 30 year battle, but the fact that they decommissioned (allegedly) and now administer British rule in the six counties is not a sign of defeat. The canines on the courtyard know that SF's participation at Stormont is simply another phase in "the struggle".
Many Irish Nationalists have thrown the towel in and given up hope, and the longer NI exists as part of the UK the more some Nationalists may feel that a UI is just not possible, at least in their lifetime. It's the ones who don't want a united Ireland that I'm puzzled with.
The only reason SF signed up to the GFA was because the GFA provides the democratic means by which to achieve a UI. For Nationalists to abandon their age-old goal of 32 county independence after so much discrimination in what they describe and what effectively was a 'Unionist dominated sectarian state' seems incomprehensible.
Btw, do you fear a united Ireland because you think that what happened to Catholics in NI might happen to Unionists in a united Ireland?
A coherent answer would be appreciated.0 -
The only selfish view is the one that wants to needlessly plunge the country back into conflict.Happyman42 wrote: »
And that is as good an example of the partitionist/I'm alright Jack thinking that will cyclically bring the fundamental problems in Ireland back to the fore, again and again. It's a quietly shocking thing to write.0 -
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but republicans lost, the gfa was thier terms of surrender, Northern Ireland is secure within the union, and thanks to the gfa britian, or should I say England can't get rid of us, since only the people of Northern Ireland can decide thier future and most recent evidence shows the majorty of people are happy with the way things are. It's funny watching republicans try and trust defeat into victory, they fought a 30 year conflict to gets the Brits out, not only are the 'Brits' still here, they are now garrisoned here, just like any other part of the UK. British rule is still in place, although now republicans have accepted British ministerial posistion and are now responsible for administrating 'British rule in Ireland'. Yes Martin did shake the queens hand, but not as a fellow head of state as he had hoped, but electoral failure in the republic ment he had to shake her hand as an employee. Slight tangent here but talking about elections in the republic, finna foil managed to all but run the Irish economy into the ground, the Irish state had to run cap in hand to the eu for a bail out, even the hated Brits had to lend youse some money, to say the Irish people where displeased is an understatement. Perfect time for Sinn Fein to capatilse on this anger, instead they only managed a couple of extra seats and a failed presidential campagin. Now polls are showing that the Irish people are still sticking with the main stream party's, talk about missing the boat. Every objective the pira set itself it failed and now it disarmed does not sound like a victory to me. Sinn Fein and more importantly the dissidents know , the longer Northern Ireland remains stable, the further the prospect of a united ireland becomes
We've had this debate before, and I think you know you are wrong.
I'm not claiming victory for anybody, and if you are foolish enough to think that there was a surrender then I genuinely feel sorry for you.
I think recent events and backdowns are ample proof, if it where needed, just which ideology is in retreat and riddled with justifiable insecurity. Unionism is coming to terms, too slowly for my liking, but at least it is happening, every year the protest dies down a little bit more. There is a palable disconnect between ordinary decent Unionists and those speaking for them politically, that is why claims that N.I. will be brought to a standstill over various issues (Drumcree, The Flag etc) never amount to much. Real Unionists are way ahead of their political representatives, who know they will become mainly redundant if the statlet is ever disbanded. Time to look at the bigger picture.And you obviously have no idea what ideas I have . All you are proposing is your way or no way
No, it not my way only, it is my opinion as to the only workable, sensible way. Feel free to share your ideas, it's an open forum.
The presence of the British will mean that the problem will be cyclical, it always has been, it is idiotic in the extreme to ignore that simple truth about this island. This generation will be replaced by a more militant and determined one. As I said, it is there staring us in the face, on the fringes, arming itself and being disenfranchised by the authorities (the same mistake that has always been made)pablomakaveli wrote: »Actually he's thinking logically. What sane person would want to destabilize and damage their country?
You can call it selfish or partitionist or whatever but the reality is things are better than they have been in a long time. The status quo seems the best option for peace in NI as things stand.
Republicans are like the dog chasing the car. They wouldnt know what to do with a UI if they got it yet they'll chase it down no matter what the cost if even that cost is the end to the current peace. Its probably more selfish and shocking to want to throw that peace away so needlessly.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »
The presence of the British will mean that the problem will be cyclical, it always has been, it is idiotic in the extreme to ignore that simple truth about this island. This generation will be replaced by a more militant and determined one. As I said, it is there staring us in the face, on the fringes, arming itself and being disenfranchised by the authorities (the same mistake that has always been made)
Actually the current younger generation in NI are growing up without having experienced the Troubles. All they've known is peace.
We have a situation where the only danger right now is from a tiny unpopular minority. A UI would bring about a lot of violence from the loyalist side which would lead to more violence again as a response from the republican side. This would clearly be a lot worse than the situation now.0 -
Advertisement
-
pablomakaveli wrote: »Actually the current younger generation in NI are growing up without having experienced the Troubles. All they've known is peace.
We have a situation where the only danger right now is from a tiny unpopular minority. A UI would bring about a lot of violence from the loyalist side which would lead to more violence again as a response from the republican side. This would clearly be a lot worse than the situation now.
That's not true,here in Derry and across the north it's the same crap.Shootings,bombings and rioting still happen regularly,funny kind of peace0 -
Gilbert Grape wrote: »That's not true,here in Derry and across the north it's the same crap.Shootings,bombings and rioting still happen regularly,funny kind of peace
Its still a far better situation than during the Troubles. No bombs or people being murdered on a regular basis. I'd call that peace. A tenuous peace maybe but still peace nonetheless.0 -
pablomakaveli wrote: »Its still a far better situation than during the Troubles. No bombs or people being murdered on a regular basis. I'd call that peace. A tenuous peace maybe but still peace nonetheless.
bombs are nearly a weekly/monthly occurance and what would you call regular?Have you heard of RAAD0 -
pablomakaveli wrote: »Its still a far better situation than during the Troubles. No bombs or people being murdered on a regular basis. I'd call that peace. A tenuous peace maybe but still peace nonetheless.
No it's not, because of it's potential to grow into something more widespread and destabilising. We have clearly seen how mainstream Unionism is quite happy to stoke the flames among it's own extremeists and radicals. SF are at odds with the dissidents ...for now. That could change at any time and as a result of any event. That is too precarious and demands that we push on to find a lasting solution.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »No it's not, because of it's potential to grow into something more widespread and destabilising. We have clearly seen how mainstream Unionism is quite happy to stoke the flames among it's own extremeists and radicals. SF are at odds with the dissidents ...for now. That could change at any time and as a result of any event. That is too precarious and demands that we push on to find a lasting solution.
But how will a UI make things anymore peaceful? A UI would bring about a far worse situation than the current one.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
What convinced you, Bertie Woot?0
-
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.0 -
-
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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 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
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 ireland0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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 ireland0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
Advertisement