Unification?

katydid

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Me, personally?

1 - I could be open to that as a symbolic gesture to unionists providing the english monarchy was not the head of state and that Britain had zero say in the running of the country.
.

She would still be the unelected head of the Commonwealth. It's not an organisation of equals, it's an organisation that recognises the right of the queen of England to have a special status, because the members are either current dominions or former colonies of the UK.

I would not want anything to do with any organisation that gives any monarch special status, and especially not our former colonial master.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

1970 may well be ancient history, but 1990 is not, neither is 1995, 1998 or 2006.

As I said...it's just you, being 'selective' again. :rolleyes:

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nobody is advocating a UI without mutual agreement.

Can you elaborate on this point? I assume you are including the Unionist community, even the 'fleggers.'

Banjoxed

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, lets get this version of history straight...everything was 'unfair' up until 1972, then Sunningdale collapsed (let's ignore who collapsed it and who colluded with who to do that) and then the big bad bogey men and women of the IRA appeared and destroyed all the good intentions of the Unionists and Loyalists and oppressed their own people...(lets ignore too that the same people still vote for the political wing of the IRA in huge numbers even though the IRA have long since disbanded)

That your position? :rolleyes:

Nobody is advocating a UI without mutual agreement. Since partition, Nationalists have been told by the likes of you and those with your selective understanding of history...'tough if you don't like it'.
Nobody, should be allowed to precondition a debate about the future of this island and a decision on all our futures.

Again, a parody of what I have said. I will say this though - honouring Bobby Sands is one thing, which is fair enough, but honouring the men who firebombed the La Mon or who shot Jean McConville in the back of the head? I'll pass on that. Nationalists deserve better heroes than those.

Happyman42

Saintleger wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this point? I assume you are including the Unionist community, even the 'fleggers.'

Eventually imo (and others cannot say 'it will never happen' because they just cannot know) there will be a majority vote for a UI.
Then Unionists will have to negotiate their place in that UI, the British, as per the GFA will be leaving.
As such we will all have to agree a way to govern ourselves. We will all have to make compromises and ride the swings and roundabouts etc of democracy.
No pre-conditions, just an open and frank discussion of how we navigate the future in a new entity.

Happyman42

Banjoxed wrote: »

Again, a parody of what I have said. I will say this though - honouring Bobby Sands is one thing, which is fair enough, but honouring the men who firebombed the La Mon or who shot Jean McConville in the back of the head? I'll pass on that. Nationalists deserve better heroes than those.

I don't 'honour' anybody. Including those who stood idly by looking down from the high moral ground.

Crooked Jack

Banjoxed wrote: »

Again, a parody of what I have said. I will say this though - honouring Bobby Sands is one thing, which is fair enough, but honouring the men who firebombed the La Mon or who shot Jean McConville in the back of the head? I'll pass on that. Nationalists deserve better heroes than those.

Oh yeah, you mean that celebratory march past La Mon SF hold every year. Or the We Shot Jean McConville Feile in West Belfast.
You dont even know what your point is. What are you waffling about?

Happyman42

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Oh yeah, you mean that celebratory march past La Mon SF hold every year. Or the We Shot Jean McConville Feile in West Belfast.
You dont even know what your point is. What are you waffling about?

You can bet your bottom dollar the poster has no problems with the 'honouring' of the British army while forgetting atrocities carried out by sections of same with the blessing of high command.

katydid

Banjoxed wrote: »

Again, a parody of what I have said. I will say this though - honouring Bobby Sands is one thing, which is fair enough, but honouring the men who firebombed the La Mon or who shot Jean McConville in the back of the head? I'll pass on that. Nationalists deserve better heroes than those.

How is honouring Bobby Sands fair enough? He was terrorist scum too.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Eventually imo (and others cannot say 'it will never happen' because they just cannot know) there will be a majority vote for a UI.
Then Unionists will have to negotiate their place in that UI, the British, as per the GFA will be leaving.
As such we will all have to agree a way to govern ourselves. We will all have to make compromises and ride the swings and roundabouts etc of democracy.
No pre-conditions, just an open and frank discussion of how we navigate the future in a new entity.

So you're fine with wrecking our society?

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

So you're fine with wrecking our society?

It is my opinion that our society was wrecked at partition and until that is resolved we won't have a 'normal' society for Irish people on this island. Regardless of how 'normal' you think you might be.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is my opinion that our society was wrecked at partition and until that is resolved we won't have a 'normal' society for Irish people on this island. Regardless of how 'normal' you think you might be.

Partition is done and dusted. Whatever harm might have been done is done, and is in the past.

We have a normal society in this state now. We don't need a bunch of head the balls...

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is my opinion that our society was wrecked at partition and until that is resolved we won't have a 'normal' society for Irish people on this island. Regardless of how 'normal' you think you might be.

Except your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's . Many people accepted the inevitable and made the best of it and with stunning success in the Republic.

The tragedy is that the Unionist community ( or at least their leadership) could not at any time in 50 years see beyond their noses and created a cesspit that could only result in implosion .

By the way what is a 'normal' society ?

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

Partition is done and dusted. Whatever harm might have been done is done, and is in the past.

We have a normal society in this state now. We don't need a bunch of head the balls...

No harm to you but I can't be wasting anymore pixels arguing with somebody who has such a dim grasp on history and the present as you.

If partition was 'done and dusted', what was the last 40 yrs about, why does this thread and others exist...why am I bothering?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Except your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's

I never said it did...far as I can see these are discussion boards.

Many people accepted the inevitable and made the best of it and with stunning success in the Republic.

and many didn't and couldn't, and many where left behind while the rest 'roared' to success. (which is a matter of opinion also!)

By the way what is a 'normal' society ?

You guys seem to think you live in one...you tell us.
I can tell you what an abnormal one though.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said it did...far as I can see these are discussion boards.

and many didn't and couldn't, and many where left behind while the rest 'roared' to success. (which is a matter of opinion also!)



You guys seem to think you live in one...you tell us.
I can tell you what an abnormal one though.

You keep saying 'many were left behind' or variants thereof , what were the alternatives ?

Do you not think the Republic is a success ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

You keep saying 'many were left behind' or variants thereof , what were the alternatives ?

Don't leave them behind in the callous way they where. Defend them vociferously even if it is unpopular and painful. Do not assist an oppressive force in oppressing them. There was so much that could have been done and wasn't.
The Irish state colluded in the oppression of their own people, people they where constitutionally obliged to protect and look after.

Do you not think the Republic is a success ?

No, I don't think you could say that it was a success as a 'republic'.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't leave them behind in the callous way they where. Defend them vociferously even if it is unpopular and painful. Do not assist an oppressive force in oppressing them. There was so much that could have been done and wasn't.
The Irish state colluded in the oppression of their own people, people they where constitutionally obliged to protect and look after.


No, I don't think you could say that it was a success as a 'republic'.

What do you think could have been done and wasn't ?

In what way is it not as a success ?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I don't think you could say that it was a success as a 'republic'.

It doesn't have a monarchy, that's as successful as a republic can be. What else do you want it to do?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

What do you think could have been done and wasn't ?

I refer the honourable gentleman/lady to the answer I gave previously.

In what way is it not as a success ?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It doesn't have a monarchy, that's as successful as a republic can be. What else do you want it to do?

Our 'successful' republic has some of the highest levels of inequality in the history of the state = failure.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Our 'successful' republic has some of the highest levels of inequality in the history of the state = failure.

Where is income inequality in the definition of republic?

How can it be deemed a failure as a republic for not meeting something that isn't a condition of being a republic?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

How is honouring Bobby Sands fair enough? He was terrorist scum too.

From 'I support the tactics of the army of the First Dail' to 'terrorist scum'. Don't you just love it.........

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Where is income inequality in the definition of republic?

How can it be deemed a failure as a republic for not meeting something that isn't a condition of being a republic?

If you just keep moving the goals you are gonna feel you have won any argument. :rolleyes:
I wasn't 'defining' republic I was pointing out that ours has failed and we therefore need a new way of running the country.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you just keep moving the goals you are gonna feel you have won any argument. :rolleyes:
I wasn't 'defining' republic I was pointing out that ours has failed and we therefore need a new way of running the country.

I'm not moving the goalposts, you claimed our republic has failed but the "failure" as you see it is not a condition of being a republic.

Unless what you meant to say or should have said was our country or our economic system has failed, that would make sense. I would still disagree with you but it would make sense.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I refer the honourable gentleman/lady to the answer I gave previously.


Our 'successful' republic has some of the highest levels of inequality in the history of the state = failure.

What anwers ? Post no if you could

Highest levels of inequality ! You must be joking ,that is a meaningless generalisation. Any links to back that up ?

On every single measure this 'Republic' has delivered higher standards for every strata of society . This is incontestable .

Now it wasn't always so , and there were times ,particularly in the early stages , up to at least the 60's when it was touch and go . But since then it is a undisputable.

Is there a lot more to go ? of course ,but there always is .

Happyman you really must answer what more could have been done to prevent partition. Otherwise discussion is rather meaningless , and as I have answered all your posts with seriousness and respect I don't think it is too much to ask.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

What anwers ? Post no if you could

Highest levels of inequality ! You must be joking ,that is a meaningless generalisation. Any links to back that up ?

This is just the tip;
https://www.oxfamireland.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdfs/austerity-ireland-case-study.pdf
Gender - http://www.europeanmovement.ie/ymip-ireland-has-a-long-way-to-go-in-terms-of-gender-equality/
Eduation - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/social-class-of-school-a-key-factor-in-third-level-attendance-1.1894082

On every single measure this 'Republic' has delivered higher standards for every strata of society . This is incontestable .

I never said it didn't. We had a long way to go, but in almost every area of society we are still behind, from economic equality to gender equality and it is my opinion that it didn't need to be, if leaders had led and not capitulated to various elites and religious dogmatists.
We have a dysfunctional society because of the choices our leaders made...no other reason.

Happyman you really must answer what more could have been done to prevent partition. Otherwise discussion is rather meaningless , and as I have answered all your posts with seriousness and respect I don't think it is too much to ask.

There may have been nothing to prevent partition, that is one of the classic what if's. But when it happened there was absolutely no need for the new republic to turn their backs on the people of NI. And they did, it still rankles with those people today. When the conflict boiled over the Irish government chose the side of the British, even when it was plain from as early as Bloody Sunday what was going on. They (our GOVERNMENT) unleashed the Heavy Squad on the people of the border region driving young men and women into the arms of the IRA, they (our GOVERNMENT) spent billions of our money securing a border that they where constitutionally against. I could go on, if this thread was about that.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I don't think you could say that it was a success as a 'republic'.

Do you live here?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is just the tip;
https://www.oxfamireland.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdfs/austerity-ireland-case-study.pdf
Gender - http://www.europeanmovement.ie/ymip-ireland-has-a-long-way-to-go-in-terms-of-gender-equality/
Eduation - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/social-class-of-school-a-key-factor-in-third-level-attendance-1.1894082


I never said it didn't. We had a long way to go, but in almost every area of society we are still behind, from economic equality to gender equality and it is my opinion that it didn't need to be, if leaders had led and not capitulated to various elites and religious dogmatists.
We have a dysfunctional society because of the choices our leaders made...no other reason.





There may have been nothing to prevent partition, that is one of the classic what if's. But when it happened there was absolutely no need for the new republic to turn their backs on the people of NI. And they did, it still rankles with those people today. When the conflict boiled over the Irish government chose the side of the British, even when it was plain from as early as Bloody Sunday what was going on. They (our GOVERNMENT) unleashed the Heavy Squad on the people of the border region driving young men and women into the arms of the IRA, they (our GOVERNMENT) spent billions of our money securing a border that they where constitutionally against. I could go on, if this thread was about that.

Those studies (which I agree with) mean nothing in the context of the discussion. Neither does saying we could have done better - of course we could ! but that applies to every society .

But Happyman even allowing for all those caveats there is no denying what we have created is a great success . And seeing we came from a much a much lower beginning that most other western democracies it is not surprising that we are still behind in some areas . This is in no way to minimise the role of the RCC in civil life ,the child abuse scandals, the mass emigration, and on and on .

The last thing we are is dysfunctional , one of our great achievements is that after the civil war we had an independent judiciary and civil service and didn't descend into dictatorship like some of the other catholic countries , though it was a close enough run thing. The last thing we are is dysfunctional , we just prefer stability to anything else on offer.

As for the partition question , I just don't get your reply - history didn't start in 1969. I have always taken your comments of abandonment as applying to the creation of the two states in 1920's . Am I incorrect in that ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Those studies (which I agree with) mean nothing in the context of the discussion. Neither does saying we could have done better - of course we could ! but that applies to every society .

But Happyman even allowing for all those caveats there is no denying what we have created is a great success .

You may be able to turn a blind eye, but many of us can't. There are many many people who wouln't see what they have or society in Ireland as a success, and to my mind and perception that number grows every day.

And seeing we came from a much a much lower beginning that most other western democracies it is not surprising that we are still behind in some areas . This is in no way to minimise the role of the RCC in civil life ,the child abuse scandals, the mass emigration, and on and on .

So, you don;t believe more could have been done, that successive governments chose to underscore inequality rather than stand up to elites and vested interests.

The last thing we are is dysfunctional , one of our great achievements is that after the civil war we had an independent judiciary and civil service and didn't descend into dictatorship like some of the other catholic countries , though it was a close enough run thing. The last thing we are is dysfunctional , we just prefer stability to anything else on offer.

Ask women, the poor, travellers, people at the mercy of the dregs of the HSE, homosexuals, lesbians, people whose marraiges have broken down, people who have unwanted pregnancies, etc etc etc if they think that the 'state' is functional when it comes to dealing with them.

It is simply not good enough to say; 'It's the same everywhere', that is a cop-out that supports the status quo.

As for the partition question , I just don't get your reply - history didn't start in 1969. I have always taken your comments of abandonment as applying to the creation of the two states in 1920's . Am I incorrect in that ?

Well I don't know what confused you about 'Since partition we have abandoned....'

Now I am off to watch the rugby.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

Do you live here?

Yes.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

You may be able to turn a blind eye, but many of us can't. There are many many people who wouln't see what they have or society in Ireland as a success, and to my mind and perception that number grows every day.


So, you don;t believe more could have been done, that successive governments chose to underscore inequality rather than stand up to elites and vested interests.


Ask women, the poor, travellers, people at the mercy of the dregs of the HSE, homosexuals, lesbians, people whose marraiges have broken down, people who have unwanted pregnancies, etc etc etc if they think that the 'state' is functional when it comes to dealing with them.

It is simply not good enough to say; 'It's the same everywhere', that is a cop-out that supports the status quo.


Well I don't know what confused you about 'Since partition we have abandoned....'

Now I am off to watch the rugby.

Happyman politics ( particularly democratic politics) is the art of the possible . We can only change what the electorate will accept . What is that old saying - a politician that's gets too far ahead of his constituents is just a man out for a walk, ask Noel Browne , Jim Kemmy and loads more .

We are a conservative society and our politicians reflect that , that is just the reality . But every group you mention is immeasurably better off that they were and progressively so. Some would say that in some areas unsustainably so - these are just incontrovertible facts . Could more be done - of course , but that is always the case .

And recognising that is not accepting the status quo . I can assure you a socialist republic would not have achieved the same . And I say that as someone that at some time fell into three of the categories you listed above and a few you didn't.

So how did the republic abandon the North at the foundation of the state and what could have been done differently ?

eire4

Saintleger wrote: »

Just out of curiosity which type of government around the world would you feel is superior?

OK first off steady on with the loaded tone of the question.


It is not about being superior its about bringing the most democratic possible government to the people of Ireland. Right now our governmental structure is very centralized power wise and this is not good for developing a system of government that can serve and be as responsive as possible to the needs of the people in different parts of our country.
For instance local government in Ireland is a joke. We really have almost no real effective local government in Ireland. In fact over the years our local government bodies have lost power. The trend has been to turn decision making power over to non elected professionals appointed by the central government. Thus this makes them more resonsive to pressures from the central government rather then to the local area they manage.


In fact the Council of Europe has criticised Ireland for its lack of real and meaningful local government. They issued a report noting the weak constitional protection for local government and pointing out the very meagre authorty the local bodies have and how little they actually manage and that the control and administrative control of local bodies by the central government is very high.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes.

And you have no meas in the system? No respect for our president or our democratic system.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

So you're fine with wrecking our society?

I think Happyman42 is just looking at ways he feels we can make things better. He has his views clearly which differ from yours which is perfectly fine on both sides. He is not looking to "wreck" Irish society as you pejoratively claim.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

I think Happyman42 is just looking at ways he feels we can make things better. He has his views clearly which differ from yours which is perfectly fine on both sides. He is not looking to "wreck" Irish society as you pejoratively claim.

It's a simple fact that forcing a million people into our society against their will would wreck our society. It's not a matter of different opinions.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

It's a simple fact that forcing a million people into our society against their will would wreck our society. It's not a matter of different opinions.

I don't agree with him on lots of stuff, but I have yet to see him say this .He believes the course of history makes it inevitable , not the same thing at all

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

I don't agree with him on lots of stuff, but I have yet to see him say this .He believes the course of history makes it inevitable , not the same thing at all

He is in favour of a united Ireland. He wants it to happen. Which means he wants our society to be wrecked...

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

He is in favour of a united Ireland. He wants it to happen. Which means he wants our society to be wrecked...

I am in favour of a united Ireland , I want it to happen and I can assure you it does not equate to the wrecking of our society .

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

I am in favour of a united Ireland , I want it to happen and I can assure you it does not equate to the wrecking of our society .

Unless you can envisage a situation where a million unionists will be happy being forced out of the UK, and where Northern society will leave behind its bigotry and sectarianism, it will.

I can't see either of these happening in the next couple of hundred years.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Where is income inequality in the definition of republic?

How can it be deemed a failure as a republic for not meeting something that isn't a condition of being a republic?

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
archaic
a group with a certain equality between its members.
"the community of scholars and the republic of learning"

Anyway, setting the equality thing aside what sort of republic excludes 1.8m of its people. I await the typical free stater me fein response from you

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Unless you can envisage a situation where a million unionists will be happy being forced out of the UK, and where Northern society will leave behind its bigotry and sectarianism, it will.

I can't see either of these happening in the next couple of hundred years.

That is already happening at an astonishing rate , and don't be so profligate with the bigotry name calling - it is only in the 90's that homosexuality was decriminalised and as the Guardian pointed out we are the only democracy to enact blasphemy legislation in the 21st century. We have more in common with Ulster unionists than we might like to admit.

But economics (as always) will decide .

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
archaic
a group with a certain equality between its members.
"the community of scholars and the republic of learning"

Anyway, setting the equality thing aside what sort of republic excludes 1.8m of its people. I await the typical free stater me fein response from you

How could it have been avoided ?

eire4

katydid wrote: »

It's a simple fact that forcing a million people into our society against their will would wreck our society. It's not a matter of different opinions.

No that is your opinion not a fact both in terms of claiming 1 million people are going to be forced into something against their will and that it will result in doomsday for Irish society.


Others have a different view and one not quite so apocalyptic as yours is.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

That is already happening at an astonishing rate , and don't be so profligate with the bigotry name calling - it is only in the 90's that homosexuality was decriminalised and as the Guardian pointed out we are the only democracy to enact blasphemy legislation in the 21st century. We have more in common with Ulster unionists than we might like to admit.

But economics (as always) will decide .

Unionists are deciding to stop being unionists at an astonishing rate? What rate is that? (A rough percentage will do)

We may have only decriminalised homosexuality in the nineties, but that was just the law catching up with reality. The bigotry in NI is not about sexual matters...although there is a fair amount of bigotry in that direction amongst a certain fundamentalist Christian cohort. I'm talking about sectarian bigotry. Whatever our faults in this state, we do not have sectarianism. Nobody cares what religion any one is, because religion is not connected to political opinions or tribes. That kind of sectarian bigotry will take a very long time to sort out. And then, and only then, can they be considered a normal society and fit to join with any other state.

Richard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
archaic
a group with a certain equality between its members.
"the community of scholars and the republic of learning"

Anyway, setting the equality thing aside what sort of republic excludes 1.8m of its people. I await the typical free stater me fein response from you

You've emboldened "a group with a certain equality between its members". That is an archaic definition (as you have posted).

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Unionists are deciding to stop being unionists at an astonishing rate? What rate is that? (A rough percentage will do)

We may have only decriminalised homosexuality in the nineties, but that was just the law catching up with reality. The bigotry in NI is not about sexual matters...although there is a fair amount of bigotry in that direction amongst a certain fundamentalist Christian cohort. I'm talking about sectarian bigotry. Whatever our faults in this state, we do not have sectarianism. Nobody cares what religion any one is, because religion is not connected to political opinions or tribes. That kind of sectarian bigotry will take a very long time to sort out. And then, and only then, can they be considered a normal society and fit to join with any other state.

And you don't consider your views bigoted ?

Redbishop

katydid wrote: »

Unionists are deciding to stop being unionists at an astonishing rate? What rate is that? (A rough percentage will do)

We may have only decriminalised homosexuality in the nineties, but that was just the law catching up with reality. The bigotry in NI is not about sexual matters...although there is a fair amount of bigotry in that direction amongst a certain fundamentalist Christian cohort. I'm talking about sectarian bigotry. Whatever our faults in this state, we do not have sectarianism. Nobody cares what religion any one is, because religion is not connected to political opinions or tribes. That kind of sectarian bigotry will take a very long time to sort out. And then, and only then, can they be considered a normal society and fit to join with any other state.

I m not so sure of your opinion of our perfect republic there Katy. No religious or racist bigotry where you live? It might not be apparent to you but there is still some there in my area anyway.

katydid

Redbishop wrote: »

I m not so sure of your opinion of our perfect republic there Katy. No religious or racist bigotry where you live? It might not be apparent to you but there is still some there in my area anyway.

I didn't say it was a perfect republic. No republic, or any other political system, is perfect. But it's as good as any other republic, and a hell of a lot better than many.

No, there is no religious bigotry where I love. Racism, yes. Just like in any other country on the planet.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

And you don't consider your views bigoted ?

No. Why would they be?

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

No. Why would they be?

'And then, and only then, can they be considered a normal society and fit to join with any other state'


You lump a community of nearly a million people into the above and don't see it as bigoted ?

Just like the Irish are a feckless drunken bunch of louts or African people have a lower I.Q ?