Unification?

eire4

Godge wrote: »

No it is up to SF to prove themselves as reasonable democrats in order to reassure people on both sides of the border who are in favour of but also apprehensive of a united Ireland in the long run.

Until that happens, a majority will continue to vote no to a united Ireland.

First off nobody has been voting on a united Ireland recently so not sure what that comment is about. Opinion polls are taken from time to time but no actual votes recently.


In terms of Sinn Fein your statement is very vague. You say Sinn Fein has to reassure people but what does that mean? What exactly do they have to do in your opinion, name speciifc things they must do in your opinion that equate to this amorphous reassurance you talk about?

Thomas_.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's up to Unionists to present themselves as reasonable democrats, the reason the British want rid is the Unionists are impossible to deal with and they have only themselves to blame.

How do you see someone as a "reasonable democrat" when one has a fierce nationalistic mindset and wants to impose that nationalistic mindset upon others? I´ve met various Irish Nationalists and Republicans (often they are both) who expressed their views upon Unionists in exactly that way. The hatred towards the British they carry with them, sooner or later, shines through.

I don't have much love for commemorative lip service, I will likely ignore the 'official' events.

I see. You might join some alternative commemoration events.

Thomas_.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't see SF on the streets rioting about everything from marches to flying flags...do you?
I don't see gerrymanderiing and veto in their history either. Nor do I see any instance where they walked away from a table or refused to be even in the same room as their political equals...can you Godge?
Are you sure you have a grasp of the meaning of 'democrat' there Godge?

*awaits the 'sure that was all in the past' stock answer.

The last speech of Gerry Adams when he answered his party members in Enniskillen about how to deal with "some of" the Unionists was plain and more effective as any riots, marches, gerrymandering, walk away from negitiations. When he said "we have to break them ("bästards") by equality ..." left much room for imagination but the message was clear. They have to "bow" to what the Shinners think means equality. This is going beyond the usual "equality in rights", it´s similar to his expression in the 1980s when he said "for those who don´t like to live in a UI, there´s always the Ferry to England".

There are times, when politicians like Adams speak their mind in their belief that "they are among themselves and can speak like they do among themselves". Pity for him that this speech has been recorded and made public. McGuinness must have felt deeply embarrassed by that. The expression of a "reasonable democrat", isn´t it?

Happyman42

Thomas_. wrote: »

How do you see someone as a "reasonable democrat" when one has a fierce nationalistic mindset and wants to impose that nationalistic mindset upon others? I´ve met various Irish Nationalists and Republicans (often they are both) who expressed their views upon Unionists in exactly that way. The hatred towards the British they carry with them, sooner or later, shines through.

Are you going to try now and postulate that the history of Unionism is a history of reasonable democrats?
I on't hate the 'British', I hate what the 'British did and continues to do in the world'. Judging by their continued bloodlust and imperialism around the world I on't expect that 'hate' to simmer out any time soon, tragically.

I see. You might join some alternative commemoration events.

No, I won't be 'joining' any of them.

Happyman42

Thomas_. wrote: »

The last speech of Gerry Adams when he answered his party members in Enniskillen about how to deal with "some of" the Unionists was plain and more effective as any riots, marches, gerrymandering, walk away from negitiations. When he said "we have to break them ("bästards") by equality ..." left much room for imagination but the message was clear. They have to "bow" to what the Shinners think means equality. This is going beyond the usual "equality in rights", it´s similar to his expression in the 1980s when he said "for those who don´t like to live in a UI, there´s always the Ferry to England".

There are times, when politicians like Adams speak their mind in their belief that "they are among themselves and can speak like they do among themselves". Pity for him that this speech has been recorded and made public. McGuinness must have felt deeply embarrassed by that. The expression of a "reasonable democrat", isn´t it?

I agree with Adams on this...have no truck with bigots and those who wish to continue discrimination and hold up a return to normality. That was what he was talking about....keep pushing the equality agenda because that is what needs to happen in NI ahead of unification.
You can spin it as an attack on Unionism in general if you wish...it wasn't.

Thomas_.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you going to try now and postulate that the history of Unionism is a history of reasonable democrats?

I didn´t say anything in that direction. What I meant is that for using democratical rules, some people on both sides still have something to learn about it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I on't hate the 'British', I hate what the 'British did and continues to do in the world'. Judging by their continued bloodlust and imperialism around the world I on't expect that 'hate' to simmer out any time soon, tragically.

Can you be a bit more precise on that please? I wouldn´t take it you´d prefer to let the terrorists have their way unopposed. Without the working behind closed doors between the British and Irish govt. as well as by talks to the Shinners and the IRA representatives, there would had been no GFA (that includes talks with the Unionists as well of course). So what´s wrong with that in the sense of what you said "what the British did and continues to do ..."?

"Continued bloodlust and imperialism around the world". There you go with the usual "argumentation" of the average Republican. No sense of having a differential view on it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I won't be 'joining' any of them.

No? Then you´ll sit in private and commemorate the Rising by yourself. The last time we´ve met you´ve been very enthusiastic to send Easter Lilly badges to recepients.

What happened to you since then? Well, that all was two years ago and some things change.

Thomas_.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I agree with Adams on this...have no truck with bigots and those who wish to continue discrimination and hold up a return to normality. That was what he was talking about....keep pushing the equality agenda because that is what needs to happen in NI ahead of unification.
You can spin it as an attack on Unionism in general if you wish...it wasn't.

When it comes to secure equal rights to everybody I agree, when that means to impose some "idea of equality that robs some people of their own identity" I´m against it.

"An attack on Unionism" is quite the thing as his speech has been perceived and not just by the Unionists themselves.

The Golden Miller

Thomas_. wrote: »

When it comes to secure equal rights to everybody I agree, when that means to impose some "idea of equality that robs some people of their own identity" I´m against it.

"An attack on Unionism" is quite the thing as his speech has been perceived and not just by the Unionists themselves.

Yes and also partitionists and anyone with an agenda against Sinn Fein. It's actually hilarious how the irony of his comment is lost on some people

The Golden Miller

Thomas_. wrote: »

I didn´t say anything in that direction. What I meant is that for using democratical rules, some people on both sides still have something to learn about it.



Can you be a bit more precise on that please? I wouldn´t take it you´d prefer to let the terrorists have their way unopposed. Without the working behind closed doors between the British and Irish govt. as well as by talks to the Shinners and the IRA representatives, there would had been no GFA (that includes talks with the Unionists as well of course). So what´s wrong with that in the sense of what you said "what the British did and continues to do ..."?

"Continued bloodlust and imperialism around the world". There you go with the usual "argumentation" of the average Republican. No sense of having a differential view on it.



No? Then you´ll sit in private and commemorate the Rising by yourself. The last time we´ve met you´ve been very enthusiastic to send Easter Lilly badges to recepients.

What happened to you since then? Well, that all was two years ago and some things change.

Here's your typical British apologist type of post. An Irish person comes onto a forum to moan about Republicans not being reasonable democrats and wanting everything their way, basically throwing in as many thinly veiled attacks on nationalism as they can, as if Republican/Nationalists are the problem, and failing to mention unionists at all, even ignoring the fact that nearly all compromises have been made by nationalists. Then when shown Unionists are in fact the worst democrats off all time, it's back to the "both sides are as bad as each other" rhetoric. Just can't bring yourself to criticise anything British/Unionist is it? I suppose criticising unionists and placing any sort of blame on the worst culprits for blocking progress would go completely against the mantra of revisionists

As for 1916 celebrations, I too have absolutely no desire to celebrate a shambles of "a remembrance" organised by the party who are the complete antithesis to everything the men and women of 1916 stood for.

DarkyHughes

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Here's your typical British apologist type of post. An Irish person comes onto a forum to moan about Republicans not being reasonable democrats and wanting everything their way, basically throwing in as many thinly veiled attacks on nationalism as they can, as if Republican/Nationalists are the problem, and failing to mention unionists at all, even ignoring the fact that nearly all compromises have been made by nationalists. Then when shown Unionists are in fact the worst democrats off all time, it's back to the "both sides are as bad as each other" rhetoric. Just can't bring yourself to criticise anything British/Unionist is it? I suppose criticising unionists and placing any sort of blame on the worst culprits for blocking progress would go completely against the mantra of revisionists

As for 1916 celebrations, I too have absolutely no desire to celebrate a shambles of "a remembrance" organised by the party who are the complete antithesis to everything the men and women of 1916 stood for.

True. Irish Republicanism is a free more democratic political ideology than most others on this island. The whole war in the North reminded of the Vietnam war (obviously on a much, much smaller scale) both fighting for more or less the same goal. Instead of the Americans & their South Vietnam puppet state battling Viet Minh it was Britain & their N.I puppet state battling the Irish Republicans.
The words "terrorist" & "communist" were just government propaganda terms made up & used by the pro-state media in ways to dehumanize & de-legitimatize your enemy.

Thomas_.

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Here's your typical British apologist type of post. An Irish person comes onto a forum to moan about Republicans not being reasonable democrats and wanting everything their way, basically throwing in as many thinly veiled attacks on nationalism as they can, as if Republican/Nationalists are the problem, and failing to mention unionists at all, even ignoring the fact that nearly all compromises have been made by nationalists. Then when shown Unionists are in fact the worst democrats off all time, it's back to the "both sides are as bad as each other" rhetoric.

Well, I´m plainly speaking against any sort of nationalism because I believe that such a creed is just poison when it is exaggerated and many forms of nationalism are exaggerated.

Just can't bring yourself to criticise anything British/Unionist is it? I suppose criticising unionists and placing any sort of blame on the worst culprits for blocking progress would go completely against the mantra of revisionists

I´ve nothing against criticism as long as it is reasonable and gets to the point of the subject at hand, but what I´ve witnessed for years on the side of the Irish Nationalists and Republicans is as much generalisation as one can find among their like minded equivalents on the Unionists / Loyalists side.

As for 1916 celebrations, I too have absolutely no desire to celebrate a shambles of "a remembrance" organised by the party who are the complete antithesis to everything the men and women of 1916 stood for.

Oh yes I know, that´s the spirit of all those you "refuse" to recognise the existing Republic of Ireland as the lawful and legitimate Irish State. But even the Shinners will with a great deal of probability attend the "official" celebrations in 2015 as well as in 2016.

Thomas_.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

True. Irish Republicanism is a free more democratic political ideology than most others on this island.

Maybe it would be that way if it wasn´t for their staunch Nationalism at its core which is on display by many fellow Republicans when they air their views.

The whole war in the North reminded of the Vietnam war (obviously on a much, much smaller scale) both fighting for more or less the same goal. Instead of the Americans & their South Vietnam puppet state battling Viet Minh it was Britain & their N.I puppet state battling the Irish Republicans.

What a way to compare these two different countries, but well it´s your right to do so according to your right of free speech. I don´t have to agree with you on that.

The words "terrorist" & "communist" were just government propaganda terms made up & used by the pro-state media in ways to dehumanize & de-legitimatize your enemy.

Why I´m not surprised about that? Irish Republicanism has, besides its strong nationalism, Socialism at its political grass-roots too and the grass-roots of Socialism is Communism. But there are various varieties of Socialism.

The only political creed I believe in is Social Democracy.

Happyman42

Thomas_. wrote: »

when that means to impose some "idea of equality that robs some people of their own identity"

Again, Adams was identifying the brand of Unionism which has stubbornly refused to accept 'normality' in a bigoted and supremacist way.(a throwback to those days when Unionism was supremacist and bigoted, it really isn't that long ago) If you stupidly interpret it as something else that, in fairness, is your problem.
If you could show us how SF are 'robbing' or even proposing to 'rob' people of their identity. You might keep my interest in debating with you.

Thomas_.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, Adams was identifying the brand of Unionism which has stubbornly refused to accept 'normality' in a bigoted and supremacist way.(a throwback to those days when Unionism was supremacist and bigoted, it really isn't that long ago) If you stupidly interpret it as something else that, in fairness, is your problem.

That´s what he said afterwards to "explain" what he meant by that, but the message perceived by his fellowmen was clear enough. He didn´t distinguish between the "backwards minded" and the other "normal" Unionists.

In fact, it´s Adams´ problem and not mine because with such an expression in his speech, he put more distrust into the Unionists towards SF and even backed their prejudices towards him.

If you could show us how SF are 'robbing' or even proposing to 'rob' people of their identity. You might keep my interest in debating with you.

Have you forgotten about all the "flag riots" and what went down in the two years since? When one talks with Republicans of a staunch nationalist mindset, it´s always the same that "Ireland here and Ireland there comes always first", there is no room for individuality and frankly I don´t put this same mindset on yourself from the time I know you on this boards, but I´ve really met such people and they disgust me with their irrational nationalism. They are no better than those they oppose with their own prejudices.

To let them Unionists remain British is nothing but a lip service in the light of all the problems still on the agenda regarding symbols, marches and the past in NI. The official stance of SF in public regarding that is one thing, the acting of their members and fellow travellers on social media and so far is often quite another.

But you may tell me your interpretation of what "the greening of NI" means to you, apart from the official SF record, just in your own words. That would be indeed interesting in debating with you.

Happyman42

Thomas_. wrote: »

That´s what he said afterwards to "explain" what he meant by that, but the message perceived by his fellowmen was clear enough. He didn´t distinguish between the "backwards minded" and the other "normal" Unionists.

In fact, it´s Adams´ problem and not mine because with such an expression in his speech, he put more distrust into the Unionists towards SF and even backed their prejudices towards him.




Have you forgotten about all the "flag riots" and what went down in the two years since? When one talks with Republicans of a staunch nationalist mindset, it´s always the same that "Ireland here and Ireland there comes always first", there is no room for individuality and frankly I don´t put this same mindset on yourself from the time I know you on this boards, but I´ve really met such people and they disgust me with their irrational nationalism. They are no better than those they oppose with their own prejudices.

To let them Unionists remain British is nothing but a lip service in the light of all the problems still on the agenda regarding symbols, marches and the past in NI. The official stance of SF in public regarding that is one thing, the acting of their members and fellow travellers on social media and so far is often quite another.

But you may tell me your interpretation of what "the greening of NI" means to you, apart from the official SF record, just in your own words. That would be indeed interesting in debating with you.

The 'flag' had nothing to do with 'Ireland' but was an attempt to normalise (an Alliance party motion) with the rest of the UK. It was Unionism (and it's tradition of veto and supremacy} that had the problem with that, so how it is indicative of SF wanting to remove somebody's identity I don't know. You seem to think that treating issues like this with kidgloves in case of 'upsetting some' as the way forward, it isn't and won't be. Time for that brand of Unionism to grow up and retire itself from the public stage.
So any more examples of SF attempting to remove or restrict expressions of identity?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'flag' had nothing to do with 'Ireland' but was an attempt to normalise (an Alliance party motion) with the rest of the UK. It was Unionism (and it's tradition of veto and supremacy} that had the problem with that, so how it is indicative of SF wanting to remove somebody's identity I don't know. You seem to think that treating issues like this with kidgloves in case of 'upsetting some' as the way forward, it isn't and won't be. Time for that brand of Unionism to grow up and retire itself from the public stage.
So any more examples of SF attempting to remove or restrict expressions of identity?

There was no need to normalize with the rest of UK. Just SF and Alliance causing trouble. We want none of that trouble down here tyvm.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There was no need to normalize with the rest of UK.

Unless you are a Unionist with antiquated supremacist tendencies.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There was no need to normalize with the rest of UK. Just SF and Alliance causing trouble. We want none of that trouble down here tyvm.

Them shinners and their troublesome equality agenda. We certainly dont want any of that equality nonsense in our glorious free state.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Them shinners and their troublesome equality agenda. We certainly dont want any of that equality nonsense in our glorious free state.

We want equality and while we're not perfect thankfully we're better than most. What we don't want are people willing to cause civic disruption over whatever colored piece of cloth flies on a flag pole. And that's a condemnation of both sides before you accuse me of bias.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What we don't want are people willing to cause civic disruption over whatever colored piece of cloth flies on a flag pole.

ah - that simplistic viewpoint explains why you find the whole northern conflict thing so hard to understand.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We want equality and while we're not perfect thankfully we're better than most. What we don't want are people willing to cause civic disruption over whatever colored piece of cloth flies on a flag pole. And that's a condemnation of both sides before you accuse me of bias.

Both sides? Didnt see any Shinners out smashing up city hall over the fleg.
Also admire this sense of entitlement you have that allows you to speak so assuredly on behalf of everyone in the 26 counties (which I assume is what you mean by this "we" nonsense, as if everyone north of Dundalk is an alien)

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Both sides? Didnt see any Shinners out smashing up city hall over the fleg.

They were sufficiently petty to go along with the alliance proposal.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They were sufficiently petty to go along with the alliance proposal.

Which is shorthand for: 'Let's not discommode or upset the refusniks and supremacists, anything for a quiet life'

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is shorthand for: 'Let's not discommode or upset the refusniks and supremacists, anything for a quiet life'

For something as petty as what color flag is flying? Yes. Let us not.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They were sufficiently petty to go along with the alliance proposal.

They actually compromised with Alliance and stepped back from their original position which was the total removal of the flag. Petty indeed.:rolleyes:
Even were your statement accurate it hardly puts them on the same level as those who blocked roads, burned cars and generally wrecked the gaff.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For something as petty as what color flag is flying? Yes. Let us not.

So in your grand political ideology at what stage does one stop pandering to a minority of violent louts every time they threaten to stand in the middle of the road waving flags?

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

They actually compromised with Alliance and stepped back from their original position which was the total removal of the flag. Petty indeed.:rolleyes:
Even were your statement accurate it hardly puts them on the same level as those who blocked roads, burned cars and generally wrecked the gaff.

They should never have concerned themselves with such a trivial thing. Both sides are extremely petty for even caring about a stupid piece of cloth, it's easy to forget these people are supposed to be adults. And you want them in our country? No thank you.

So in your grand political ideology at what stage does one stop pandering to a minority of violent louts every time they threaten to stand in the middle of the road waving flags?

The number of people who wanted the flag to stop flying everyday were a minority? Do you have proof of that statement?

I would agree the number of vandals protesting were a minority but I would imagine the number of people who wanted the flag to remain flying everyday were in the majority.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would agree the number of vandals protesting were a minority but I would imagine the number of people who wanted the flag to remain flying everyday were in the majority.

The evidence suggests that they didn't care that much. The very next test at an election saw the issue not mattering one bit and suggests the majority wanted normality.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They should never have concerned themselves with such a trivial thing. Both sides are extremely petty for even caring about a stupid piece of cloth, it's easy to forget these people are supposed to be adults. And you want them in our country? No thank you.

They are already in our country. And everything can be made to sound petty and ridiculous if you reduce it down to its primary physical affect.
Oooh, a new road? Imagine getting upset about a pile of compressed rocks and tar, how petty.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The number of people who wanted the flag to stop flying everyday were a minority? Do you have proof of that statement?

I would agree the number of vandals protesting were a minority but I would imagine the number of people who wanted the flag to remain flying everyday were in the majority.

Yes, it was voted for in Belfast City Hall by a majority of representatives of the people.

marienbad

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There was no need to normalize with the rest of UK. Just SF and Alliance causing trouble. We want none of that trouble down here tyvm.

I am all for the quiet life and I will put up with a lot to keep it, but you are wrong on this one .

If it was such a matter of indifference they would not have protested so loudly .

Why should Belfast be any different than Leeds or Birmingham ? It is not like they were trying to make it like Cork or Dublin where you can't fly it at all ( which is a subject we have to face up to sometime)

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

It is not like they were trying to make it like Cork or Dublin where you can't fly it at all ( which is a subject we have to face up to sometime)

The 'fleg' has been flown in both where appropriate without any silly buggers.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'fleg' has been flown in both where appropriate without any silly buggers.

It should be flown whenever though , just like every other flag.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

It should be flown whenever though , just like every other flag.

Absolutely, but never used as a triumphalist gesture in sensitive environments.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They should never have concerned themselves with such a trivial thing. Both sides are extremely petty for even caring about a stupid piece of cloth, it's easy to forget these people are supposed to be adults. And you want them in our country? No thank you.

They are already in our country. And everything can be made to sound petty and ridiculous if you reduce it down to its primary physical affect.
Oooh, a new road? Imagine getting upset about a pile of compressed rocks and tar, how petty.




Yes, it was voted for in Belfast City Hall by a majority of representatives of the people.

I asked you for evidence the majority of people supported stopping the flag from flying everyday because that is the assertion you made. You offered me proof the majority of their representatives do. Not the same thing.

Speak for yourself they're not from the south. (Mercifully)

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely, but never used as a triumphalist gesture in sensitive environments.

Of course , but I was just making the point that our record isn't spotless either , non league stuff though compared to the Premier league in Belfast.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely, but never used as a triumphalist gesture in sensitive environments.

Would you agree on the same restrictions for republican flegs?

If ye were a majority?

In a UI?

Iwasfrozen

marienbad wrote: »

I am all for the quiet life and I will put up with a lot to keep it, but you are wrong on this one .

If it was such a matter of indifference they would not have protested so loudly .

Why should Belfast be any different than Leeds or Birmingham ? It is not like they were trying to make it like Cork or Dublin where you can't fly it at all ( which is a subject we have to face up to sometime)

I think both camps are equally pathetic and I'm glad they're not part of my country.

Unification would suddenly mean this nonsense becomes our shît to deal with.

marienbad

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think both camps are equally pathetic and I'm glad they're not part of my country.

then let them fly the flag equally with every other city .

Iwasfrozen

marienbad wrote: »

then let them fly the flag equally with every other city .

As long as they keep their problems in the North it's no skin off my nose. SF are incredibly pathetic for even raising the issue though.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Would you agree on the same restrictions for republican flegs?

If ye were a majority?

In a UI?

What is a 'republican flag'?
I would expect the normal flying of the state flag. Not allowing triumphalist neanderthals clinging to long gone notions of past supremacy.
It was just 'normalising' society ahead of unification, you should be thanking SF and the Alliance.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is a 'republican flag'?
I would expect the normal flying of the state flag. Not allowing triumphalist neanderthals clinging to long gone notions of past supremacy.
It was just 'normalising' society ahead of unification, you should be thanking SF and the Alliance.

What's "normal" flying?

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's "normal" flying?

That which is decided by a democratic vote.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I asked you for evidence the majority of people supported stopping the flag from flying everyday because that is the assertion you made. You offered me proof the majority of their representatives do. Not the same thing.

Speak for yourself they're not from the south. (Mercifully)

Belfast City council is now a nationalist majority council.
SF, the SDLP and Alliance all voted in favour of restricting the number of days the flag flew over Belfast city hall.
In lieu of a referendum this is the only reasonable means of assessing public opinion on the issue.
Are you suggesting a nationalist majority city would have favoured the flying of the British flag? Where is your evidence for this?

marienbad

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As long as they keep their problems in the North it's no skin off my nose. SF are incredibly pathetic for even raising the issue though.

I really don't see why you think that, the watch today is 'normalisation' is it not ? And this is just part of that process

eire4

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think both camps are equally pathetic and I'm glad they're not part of my country.

Unification would suddenly mean this nonsense becomes our shît to deal with.

Your arguments are I have to say not very credible when your so one sided. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Unionist and Nationalist sides in the north there is no question equality and respect for each others traditions have to be a cornerstone. Clearly both sides should be able to fly both flags that represent each community. Your argument has been to bash Republicans and blame them for causing problems over this issue when it is simply one of equality. Instead your preference is to maintain the previous status quo which was one of discrimination.

Karl Stein

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Belfast City council is now a nationalist majority council. SF, the SDLP and Alliance all voted...

SF, the SDLP and Alliance all voted in favour of synchronizing flying the union flag (UF) on the same days as it is flown in Britain.

The UF being flown 24/7/365 over BCH was little more than a pathetic remnant of the ever disappearing sectarian uni-cultural state Unionists once ruled. Unionism is obsessed with digging its heels in and not giving an inch - if equality breaks people like Gregory Campbell and Nigel Dodds then let it roll on.

Thomas_.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'flag' had nothing to do with 'Ireland' but was an attempt to normalise (an Alliance party motion) with the rest of the UK. It was Unionism (and it's tradition of veto and supremacy} that had the problem with that, so how it is indicative of SF wanting to remove somebody's identity I don't know. You seem to think that treating issues like this with kidgloves in case of 'upsetting some' as the way forward, it isn't and won't be. Time for that brand of Unionism to grow up and retire itself from the public stage.
So any more examples of SF attempting to remove or restrict expressions of identity?

This quote is taken from a wikipedia article (I still am not allowed to post links).

... Nationalist councillors wanted the Union Jack taken down permanently, and unionist councillors wanted it to keep flying all year. Alliance put forward a compromise: that it would fly on 18 designated days, in line with UK government policy on the flying of the union flag from UK government buildings, which is followed by many city and local governments in Britain.[6][13][14] At Parliament Buildings (or Stormont), where the Northern Ireland Assembly meets, the Union Jack is only flown on 15 designated days.[15] The nationalist and Alliance councillors voted in favour of this compromise and it was passed.

I think that it is obvious who the Nationalist concillors are in the first place. It´s the Shinners.

maccored

Thomas_. wrote: »

The nationalist and Alliance councillors voted in favour of this compromise and it was passed.

and the unionists were the ones against the compromise. that says all that needs to be said.

Thomas_.

maccored wrote: »

and the unionists were the ones against the compromise. that says all that needs to be said.

Yes, and Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and therefore the Union Flag has more a legitimate right and place to be flown from public buildings than the Irish tricolour. That too says all that needs to be said.

maccored

Thomas_. wrote: »

Yes, and Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and therefore the Union Flag has more a legitimate right and place to be flown from public buildings than the Irish tricolour. That too says all that needs to be said.

i believe the nationalists wanted a neutral flag, not a tricolour, flown.

its right that the uinion flag should be flown as many times as anywhere else in the UK - not 365 days a year. the point still stands - the fact that the unionists didnt agree to that compromise tells us all we need to know.

Happyman42

Thomas_. wrote: »

This quote is taken from a wikipedia article (I still am not allowed to post links).



I think that it is obvious who the Nationalist concillors are in the first place. It´s the Shinners.

and? What is your point. Nationalists in NI want normality...Unionists plainly don't and want to hold on to symbols of their supremacy. like marching where they are not wanted and where their 'celebrations' are seen as triumphalist displays of their bigoted and supremacist past. It isn't that hard to understand.