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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Reunification Question
Comments
-
I tutted at Jack for assuming much too much, and I have to do the same with you. Is this what would happen if there were UI referenda now, or in the foreseeable future? Very possibly. There's a clearcut Unionist (or at least, small-u unionist) majority in the North; there's a hugely conservative electorate in the Republic. So it'd be rejected out of hand in the former in any case, and out of "fourth green field" ethnic nationalist conservative "Republican" sentiment and perhaps not wanting to "sell the pass" by conceding too much too soon. (Though in practice it'll be a long time before it ever gets to the second part, in referenda terms, due to the likely sequencing. It might feed through into the process to some extent at representative level, however.)That is EXACTLY how it will be seen! Because the reality is that after two generations most people in the 26 counties spend very little if any time thinking about a United Ireland nor the likely hood of it happening. And they will expect that it is a case of you joining them and nothing else.
But by the time it's actually a realistic prospect? Who knows. Imagine there's a more progressive and secular dispensation on both sides of the border in 30 or 50 years' time. ("It's easy if you try...") It would mean getting rid of the crude politics of sectarian Unionism on the one hand, and of FF and SF on the other. Whether the "party brands" remain or not, the actual politics will have to change beyond all recognition.
Trouble is that the changes that would make unification feasible in some sense also make it less "necessary". It's not the raw red meat the "Republican base" wants to hear -- "Greening" the North, "shipping out" the people they don't like, etc. So the dynamics of the situation are inherently politically unstable. But I'd like to think that those things aren't carved in stone forever.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »I'd be interested to know where youre from because this is absolute waffle.
Well not that it matters, but originally from the West, with a few years down in the 'Kingdom' and in Dublin.Crooked Jack wrote: »I live on the border and the challenges people face in south armagh are the same people face in louth and Monaghan.....
Sure you have common ground with people in the South, but you'll also find the same common ground with people from the rest of the UK and most of the EU for that matter, but that is not what we are about.
You are expecting that a state that has existed for almost a 100 years and at least two and possibly three generations born into that state to toss it aside because you want them to do something different, what could you offer them that they do nor already have and would be worth changing their whole way of life to obtain it? People don't like change and most will try to avoid it if possible, so 'come join us' is most likely the offer that will be made.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »I dont see where the confusion is.
Republicans have never recognised the legitimacy of the north as a separate entity but have agreed to work within it as a political reality as a means of dismantling it.
There's a difference between not recognising the legitimacy of something and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesnt exist.
Ah the mask slips.
The Good Friday Agreement recognises Northern Ireland as a separate entity and there can be no change in its status without the consent of the majority of its people. Last I checked your lot had signed up to the GFA.0 -
Ah the mask slips.
Do you have something like a bucket full of cliches that you pluck randomly from when making Sinn Fein quotes?The Good Friday Agreement recognises Northern Ireland as a separate entity and there can be no change in its status without the consent of the majority of its people. Last I checked your lot had signed up to the GFA.
Sinn Fein have indeed agreed to the principle of "consent" (well, the british version of consent where you only ask the people they've sectioned off to get the response they want) and what of it? That doesn't mean they recognise the legitimacy of the north, they just acknowledge it as a political reality of the time.
Trying to claim otherwise is like saying unionists voted for the GFA cause they really reeaaalllllyyy wanted to see the prisoners released.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I tutted at Jack for assuming much too much,
Sorry, MaTrouble is that the changes that would make unification feasible in some sense also make it less "necessary". It's not the raw red meat the "Republican base" wants to hear -- "Greening" the North, "shipping out" the people they don't like, etc. So the dynamics of the situation are inherently politically unstable. But I'd like to think that those things aren't carved in stone forever.
Eh, what? "shipping" people out is not and never has been a part of republican ideology.
If you disagree with republicanism that's fine but please engage with it on its actual beliefs and goals, not what you think they are0 -
Well not that it matters, but originally from the West, with a few years down in the 'Kingdom' and in Dublin.
well it does matter and proves my point. You may feel a difference to people from the north but that's cause you've never spent time in any part of it. It's the same way you'd feel a difference or distance from someone in Monaghan or Donegal or the midlandsSure you have common ground with people in the South, but you'll also find the same common ground with people from the rest of the UK and most of the EU for that matter, but that is not what we are about.
Ridiculous, there is a very distinct Irish , gaelic culture that stretches across the island.You are expecting that a state that has existed for almost a 100 years and at least two and possibly three generations born into that state to toss it aside because you want them to do something different,
No, not because I do. I advocate a national discussion and debate with people choosing for themselves.what could you offer them that they do nor already have and would be worth changing their whole way of life to obtain it?
Firstly, "changing their whole way of life". Cop yourself on, I'm not calling for sharia law.
Secondly, I personally believe there are huge advantages to reunification.
Economically I think it would make the country stronger. It would remove needless duplication, streamline and better space out services, remove the difficulties of operating businesses on either side of the border, we would be competing for international business as one unit rather than a tiny island competing against itself, we could market Ireland to the world as one tourist destination with reunification presenting a huge tourism opportunity.
Socially it's necessary for there to be true reconciliation between people as it represents the "end game." Reunification is it, the end of the argument, once it happens the focus will then be on building a better country, not on squabbling over the constitutional position.
I suppose the biggest changes would be felt by people on the border who would no longer have to deal with the hassle of different currencies, mobile signals, tax systems and just the day to day pain in the hole of it all (got a good dose of it myself last night when trying to deal with that cuntish eflow M50 toll system).
It would also do a great service to Agri/Food, one of our most important industries. In terms of trade, safety and crucially, disease control, it would be hugely helpful.
Crime is another big one that could be tackled a lot more effectively without the hindrance of the border, and in fact that could be stretched to the effectiveness of all emergency services.
And that's just off the top of my head. Like i say, Im all for a full and frank national discussion to uncover all the facts (for example, we dont actually know how much the brits spend in the north and on what) and hash out all the issues.People don't like change and most will try to avoid it if possible, so 'come join us' is most likely the offer that will be made.
It never ceases to amaze me how people on boards, and i notice it particularly with the anti-SF crowd, feel so qualified to speak on behalf of everybody with huge, sweeping statements like this.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Eh, what? "shipping" people out is not and never has been a part of republican ideology.
If you disagree with republicanism that's fine but please engage with it on its actual beliefs and goals, not what you think they are
I'm "engaging" with an all-too-prevalent strand of self-described Republican sentiment -- some might say, its "base", indeed. What they actually say, not merely what I "think" on no basis. Merely incanting "outreach" and "strictly non-sectarian" a few times doesn't make that go away.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Sinn Fein have indeed agreed to the principle of "consent" (well, the british version of consent where you only ask the people they've sectioned off to get the response they want) and what of it? That doesn't mean they recognise the legitimacy of the north, they just acknowledge it as a political reality of the time.
Maybe SF's copy says something different, but:
Emph added.The GFA wrote:The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will: [...]
(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;
No. It'd be a lot like saying they agreed that there would be "mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners". Exactly like that, indeed.Trying to claim otherwise is like saying unionists voted for the GFA cause they really reeaaalllllyyy wanted to see the prisoners released.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I'm "engaging" with an all-too-prevalent strand of self-described Republican sentiment
As a republican I can assure you notions of "shipping" anyone out are not prevalent. In fact the only time you really hear such sentiments on boards are when partitionists talk about wishing the north would "break off and float away" or some such nonsense.
It's quite clear that this is what you think. Please direct me to any Sinn Fein statement where they have called for the "shipping out" of people.-- some might say, its "base", indeed. What they actually say, not merely what I "think" on no basis.
Does the occasional teenage moron write stuff like this on their facebook wall? Im sure they do, but the notion that this forms any part of modern republican ideology is most certainly all in your head
I've already told you about a number of very genuine outreach projects Sinn Fein is involved in. You obviously ignored that and didnt look them up at all for fear of upsetting your predetermined notions of republicanismMerely incanting "outreach" and "strictly non-sectarian" a few times doesn't make that go away.0 -
Advertisement
-
alaimacerc wrote: »Maybe SF's copy says something different, but:
Emph added.
No. It'd be a lot like saying they agreed that there would be "mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners". Exactly like that, indeed.
Yes, a majority of people in the area cordoned off so that it would have a pro-union majority are pro-union and I'm sure they hold that view legitimately. That doesnt make british control of the north legitimate nor does it lock sinn fein into accepting british control of the north as legitimate.
Sinn Fein have never pretended they view british control of the north as legitimate and have never hidden their goal of removing it, so to get back to Godge's original point, i dont see how any mask has slipped.0 -
I think your perception of what's "prevalent" or "real" is less accurate than you imagine. Is there a "safe background amount" of such nonsense? Do you at least challenge it when you see it? Or is it in the "only a bit of craic", like the "sniper at work" paraphernalia, and so on?Crooked Jack wrote: »As a republican I can assure you notions of "shipping" anyone out are not prevalent. In fact the only time you really hear such sentiments on boards are when partitionists talk about wishing the north would "break off and float away" or some such nonsense.
I'm thinking of far-from-occasional "Republican" morons (their age and sincerity I can't verify) here, for one thing. (politics.ie is significantly worse, mind you.)Does the occasional teenage moron write stuff like this on their facebook wall? Im sure they do, but the notion that this forms any part of modern republican ideology is most certainly all in your head
Any notion that I'm ascribing this to "the official SF line" or that it's "all in my head" is indeed "all in your head". Or your line of inaccurate and less-than-civil argument, at least.
Yes, "obviously". Notwithstanding I specifically replied regarding the particular initiative you mentioned. Perhaps some "predetermined notions" are harder to shift than others.I've already told you about a number of very genuine outreach projects Sinn Fein is involved in. You obviously ignored that and didnt look them up at all for fear of upsetting your predetermined notions of republicanism
As I've said several times now, it all comes down to how much credence or weight one gives to such efforts, as against the obviously countervailing trends. Like those noted above, and your own "we don't need to ask the Unionists what 'concessions' they'd like in a UI, we know what's equitable enough for the likes of them!" attitude.0 -
Evidently your copy is considerably different to the one I just quoted! Are they not signatories to an agreement stipulating that "the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union" and "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"?Crooked Jack wrote: »That doesnt make british control of the north legitimate nor does it lock sinn fein into accepting british control of the north as legitimate.
"Ah yes, but still somehow not legitimate" is at best in the category of "mental reservation", and frankly more like a bad faith understanding of the entire agreement.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I think your perception of what's "prevalent" or "real" is less accurate than you imagine. Is there a "safe background amount" of such nonsense? Do you at least challenge it when you see it? Or is it in the "only a bit of craic", like the "sniper at work" paraphernalia, and so on?
I'm thinking of far-from-occasional "Republican" morons (their age and sincerity I can't verify) here, for one thing. (politics.ie is significantly worse, mind you.)
Any notion that I'm ascribing this to "the official SF line" or that it's "all in my head" is indeed "all in your head". Or your line of inaccurate and less-than-civil argument, at least.
Yes, "obviously". Notwithstanding I specifically replied regarding the particular initiative you mentioned. Perhaps some "predetermined notions" are harder to shift than others.
As I've said several times now, it all comes down to how much credence or weight one gives to such efforts, as against the obviously countervailing trends. Like those noted above, and your own "we don't need to ask the Unionists what 'concessions' they'd like in a UI, we know what's equitable enough for the likes of them!" attitude.
Ah, so it is all your head because i said nothing of the sort. A UI is based on justice and equality. Nobody, from amy grouping needs "concessions" where there is justice and equality.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Evidently your copy is considerably different to the one I just quoted! Are they not signatories to an agreement stipulating that "the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union" and "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"?
"Ah yes, but still somehow not legitimate" is at best in the category of "mental reservation", and frankly more like a bad faith understanding of the entire agreement.
As i said, republicans are not denying that a majority of people in the area specifically picked to give a pro-union majority are pro-union.
SF have agreed to work within that political reality. There's nothing in there about them having to become unionists themselves0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Do you have something like a bucket full of cliches that you pluck randomly from when making Sinn Fein quotes?
Sinn Fein have indeed agreed to the principle of "consent" (well, the british version of consent where you only ask the people they've sectioned off to get the response they want) and what of it? That doesn't mean they recognise the legitimacy of the north, they just acknowledge it as a political reality of the time.
Trying to claim otherwise is like saying unionists voted for the GFA cause they really reeaaalllllyyy wanted to see the prisoners released.Crooked Jack wrote: »I dont see where the confusion is.
Republicans have never recognised the legitimacy of the north as a separate entity but have agreed to work within it as a political reality as a means of dismantling it.
There's a difference between not recognising the legitimacy of something and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesnt exist.
You keep repeating the same phrases and you suggest others have stock responses?
As has been pointed out to you already, the GFA clearly states:
" the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;"
As I said already, either you accept the GFA or you don't. Implicit in accepting the GFA is recognition of the legitimacy of the North as stated in the GFA. The fact that the GFA also provides for a theoretical future change does not alter the recognition of the legitimacy of the North.
You will need to go back to Shinner Central and get a new phrase.0 -
Advertisement
-
You keep repeating the same phrases and you suggest others have stock responses?
As has been pointed out to you already, the GFA clearly states:
" the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;"
Legitimate means legal and laws are passed by the people with the biggest army. NI may be legal in some sense, but it is in no way morally legitimate and no moral person can support it.0 -
You keep repeating the same phrases and you suggest others have stock responses?
What am I to do when people keep making the same (wrong) points? At least it was in response to something on not just "the mask slips" type nonsenseAs has been pointed out to you already, the GFA clearly states:
" the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;"
Yes, that clearly states that the desire to maintain the north among some is legitimate. The opinion that the north should remain in the union is a legitimate one for people to hold. That's what it says.As I said already, either you accept the GFA or you don't. Implicit in accepting the GFA is recognition of the legitimacy of the North as stated in the GFA. The fact that the GFA also provides for a theoretical future change does not alter the recognition of the legitimacy of the North.
Well, no actually, it's not. Respecting the view of the "majority" is in there and Sinn Fein have accepted and stood by that but like i said, there's nothing in it that requires them to accept the north itself or british control of it as legitimate.You will need to go back to Shinner Central and get a new phrase.
Oh I see youve expanded on shinnerbot; how innovative of you0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »
Oh I see youve expanded on shinnerbot; how innovative of you
Thanks for the compliment but unfortunately, I will have to decline as neither shinnerbot nor Shinner Central are creations of mine.
They are well established internet terms that I picked up elsewhere.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »You may feel a difference to people from the north but that's cause you've never spent time in any part of it. I
But that is how it is for most of the people, they don't have relations nor contacts there, never mind spending time there - it is another country! I have four friends from the North, who have spend time living and working in the South (Cork & Kerry) and they all were disappointed in the country - we did not have their aspirations!Crooked Jack wrote: »Ridiculous, there is a very distinct Irish , gaelic culture that stretches across the island.
The GAA perhaps and ???Crooked Jack wrote: »Secondly, I personally believe there are huge advantages to reunification.
Economically I think it would make the country stronger. It would remove needless duplication, streamline and better space out services, remove the difficulties of operating businesses on either side of the border, we would be competing for international business as one unit rather than a tiny island competing against itself, we could market Ireland to the world as one tourist destination with reunification presenting a huge tourism opportunity.
Well if even half the estimates of the cost of running the North are true, the Irish exchequer would have to come up with anything from £3b to £9b to pump into, so there would have to be incredible economic gains!Crooked Jack wrote: »It never ceases to amaze me how people on boards, and i notice it particularly with the anti-SF crowd, feel so qualified to speak on behalf of everybody with huge, sweeping statements like this.Crooked Jack wrote: »I dont see how having concerns about certain treaties or being strong on the defence of Irish sovereignty makes you anti-Europe. Sinn Fein are most definitely pro-Europe.
The fact is that while you are dreaming of a united Ireland the rest of the country has moved on to forging a European integrated unit sometimes referred to as Euroland and that is not an aspiration, they have already started taking the practical steps in doing so by switching to the Euro and most recently the European Fiscal Compact which was accepted by way of a constitutional amendment supported by 60% of the voters. Clearly the people are not hanging around waiting for a conference on a united Ireland!
Which brings me back to the point that with every passing year the chances of a united Ireland on the terms expected by northern nationalists grow less and less likely.0 -
If Northern Ireland reunited would the name of the state change to something like " United Ireland" ? To reunify the Republic and the North under one? Flag would have to change as well and the national anthem. I don't understand why Northern Ireland doesn't have it own unique flag at present I.e representing both nationalist and unionist communities instead of using the union jack in areas.
How about just go with Ireland. Considering what the current tricolour flag means in terms of peace between the 2 major peoples on the island I think the current flag is pretty appropiate to keep in my opinion.0 -
Advertisement
-
How about just go with Ireland. Considering what the current tricolour flag means in terms of peace between the 2 major peoples on the island I think the current flag is pretty appropiate to keep in my opinion.
Very naive thinking to believe that the current flag would be acceptable to the unionist community. In fact, the suggestion would be clearly provocative to them.
The only way you could keep the tricolour is if you were to add a Union Jack in the top left like the Australian and New Zealand flags.0 -
the St Patricks saltire, the flag with the arms of the four provinces and the Green harp flag are other ones.Very naive thinking to believe that the current flag would be acceptable to the unionist community. In fact, the suggestion would be clearly provocative to them.
The only way you could keep the tricolour is if you were to add a Union Jack in the top left like the Australian and New Zealand flags.
The north is a strange place. A lot of rugby fans happily support the Irish team with the shamrocks, harps, tricolours and Amhran na bhFiann.
The soccer team play in green, soccer fans wear green but in every other part of their lives they despise the colour.
My theory on the constant displays of union jacks is simply marking territory. They are insecure and feel the need to constantly reassure themselves that they are British but the whole world knows them as Irish. When unionists are away and start talking especially in America, people respond with "what part of Ireland you from", this is what riles them more than anything.
Nationalists/catholics are in the majority for all age groups under 40, with every election there is another five years worth of Catholics reaching voting age and another five years of Protestants basically dying. The voting trends is all Catholic into the future and this feeds into a Catholic majority in universitys at the moment. Catholics in time will start occupying similar positions across the board in employment, this is what will break the unionist stranglehold.
The challenge for Sinn Fein is to keep all these emerging Catholics viewing themselves as Irish and not let them fall into the abyss of "northern Irish".0 -
Very naive thinking to believe that the current flag would be acceptable to the unionist community. In fact, the suggestion would be clearly provocative to them.
The only way you could keep the tricolour is if you were to add a Union Jack in the top left like the Australian and New Zealand flags.
I never said that the Irish tricolour would be acceptable to unionists. Here is what I said:
Considering what the current tricolour flag means in terms of peace between the 2 major peoples on the island I think the current flag is pretty appropiate to keep in my opinion.
I emphasized that the Irish tricolour flag is a very appropiate flag for a united Ireland considering it means peace between the 2 major peoples on our island. That simply is my opinion nothing more.
Unlike yourself I do not claim to know the opinions of the majority of unionists as to their views on what flag would be best suited for a unified Ireland.0 -
the St Patricks saltire, the flag with the arms of the four provinces and the Green harp flag are other ones.
The north is a strange place. A lot of rugby fans happily support the Irish team with the shamrocks, harps, tricolours and Amhran na bhFiann.
The soccer team play in green, soccer fans wear green but in every other part of their lives they despise the colour.
My theory on the constant displays of union jacks is simply marking territory. They are insecure and feel the need to constantly reassure themselves that they are British but the whole world knows them as Irish. When unionists are away and start talking especially in America, people respond with "what part of Ireland you from", this is what riles them more than anything.
Nationalists/catholics are in the majority for all age groups under 40, with every election there is another five years worth of Catholics reaching voting age and another five years of Protestants basically dying. The voting trends is all Catholic into the future and this feeds into a Catholic majority in universitys at the moment. Catholics in time will start occupying similar positions across the board in employment, this is what will break the unionist stranglehold.
The challenge for Sinn Fein is to keep all these emerging Catholics viewing themselves as Irish and not let them fall into the abyss of "northern Irish".
What a load of tosh. I'll not bore you dealing with every point. ..but to use a term like nationalists/Catholics just shows how you have not grasps the complexities and you are back in 1970 A significant and fast growing percentage of Catholics do no longer regard themselves as nationalist (even you wish it so). It is over Northern Irish is the growing identity. We want tone first class neighbours and friends of ROI but not a United country. And as for identity crisis. I don't know where you've been but you seem to represent the group in crisis - everyone else seems fairly settled0 -
What a load of tosh. I'll not bore you dealing with every point. ..but to use a term like nationalists/Catholics just shows how you have not grasps the complexities and you are back in 1970 A significant and fast growing percentage of Catholics do no longer regard themselves as nationalist (even you wish it so).
I think you're misreading the terminology completely. To say "Nationalist/Catholic" is not to say the one implies the other, and certainly not that they all have precisely the same identity -- much the same less political views. It's a hedge term, just as "Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist" even more explicitly is. To denote "that community 'over there'" -- *vague gesture* -- that self-identifies in a "family resemblance" sort of way.
If you think you can rid of the concept entirely, you might want to look at voting patterns. Or indeed, the GFA (and enabling legislation) that legally codifies it.0 -
What a load of tosh. I'll not bore you dealing with every point. ..but to use a term like nationalists/Catholics just shows how you have not grasps the complexities and you are back in 1970 A significant and fast growing percentage of Catholics do no longer regard themselves as nationalist (even you wish it so). It is over Northern Irish is the growing identity. We want tone first class neighbours and friends of ROI but not a United country. And as for identity crisis. I don't know where you've been but you seem to represent the group in crisis - everyone else seems fairly settled
who is we? Who exactly are you qualified to speak for beyond yourself?0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »who is we? Who exactly are you qualified to speak for beyond yourself?
By 'we' I understand that the poster is referring to the people of Northern Ireland. I have spent a significant amount of time in Belfast over the past six months and have been surprised by how strong the cross community, Northern Irish, identity has become. In twenty years time, I believe and hope that the hardcore Irish Republican and Loyalist mindsets will be a minority in comparison to Northern Irish identity.0 -
What a load of tosh. I'll not bore you dealing with every point. ..but to use a term like nationalists/Catholics just shows how you have not grasps the complexities and you are back in 1970 A significant and fast growing percentage of Catholics do no longer regard themselves as nationalist (even you wish it so). It is over Northern Irish is the growing identity. We want tone first class neighbours and friends of ROI but not a United country. And as for identity crisis. I don't know where you've been but you seem to represent the group in crisis - everyone else seems fairly settled
The vast majority in my experience still tend to be culturally nationalist and vote for nationalist parties though. Maybe North Down's an exception. I think something like 1% of catholics vote for unionist parties. Wouldn't surprise me if Sinn Fein end up the largest party here. It's interesting that at the same time a lot of people from a catholic background aren't too fussed about a United Ireland at the moment.
I'm a bit like that myself, I see myself as Irish but recognise that I'm from Northern Ireland, I could take or leave a United Ireland (right now, anyway) yet have a fairly strong dislike of unionist parties.
Interestingly enough in recent polls (maybe just one poll, I can't really remember tbh) there's apparently been a sharp enough decrease in people seeing themselves as "Northern Irish" and an increase in people seeing themselves as Irish/British. Saw the graph of the results somewhere. Might have a look.
Personally I'm skeptical of this whole Northern Irish identity thing as it's obviously in unionist interests and I'm not exactly particularly enamored by the DUP and Orange Order etc, and I have zero affinity with unionist symbolism and traditions, not that I'm a huge fan of patriotism etc in general.0 -
...
My theory on the constant displays of union jacks is simply marking territory. They are insecure and feel the need to constantly reassure themselves that they are British but the whole world knows them as Irish. When unionists are away and start talking especially in America, people respond with "what part of Ireland you from", this is what riles them more than anything.
.....
The challenge for Sinn Fein is to keep all these emerging Catholics viewing themselves as Irish and not let them fall into the abyss of "northern Irish".
That´s typical Shinner talk. One can be both, Irish and British if one is from Northern Ireland. To make it exclusive to choose between one or another is typical for the Shinners because of their deep hatred of everything British.
I rather hope that younger generations are not so easy deluded by the Shinners propaganda like some Posters appear to be.0 -
That´s typical Shinner talk. One can be both, Irish and British if one is from Northern Ireland. To make it exclusive to choose between one or another is typical for the Shinners because of their deep hatred of everything British.
I rather hope that younger generations are not so easy deluded by the Shinners propaganda like some Posters appear to be.
This is the main problem with the anti-shinners on Boards. They rail against things that they claim Sinn Fein say or do but in actual fact don't.
There's some clown on here keeps saying Sinn Fein are in favour of "shipping people out." Same sort of rubbish as this. I suppose I hate Peep Show, Motorhead and my girlfriend 'cause theyre all English?
Grow up.
Regarding Hannibal's post he actually makes a fair point. Look at the expressions of nationalism in the north (feiseanna, féilte, fleadh cheoils) then look at unionism; territory marking, burning flags, marching where they arent welcome etc...) Unionism has a serious identity crisis, only made worse by increased support for Scottish independence.0 -
Advertisement
-
By 'we' I understand that the poster is referring to the people of Northern Ireland.
Wow, I've gotta meet this great representative fit to speak for all the people of the north. Dont recall voting for him myself, mind.I have spent a significant amount of time in Belfast over the past six months and have been surprised by how strong the cross community, Northern Irish, identity has become. In twenty years time, I believe and hope that the hardcore Irish Republican and Loyalist mindsets will be a minority in comparison to Northern Irish identity.
What exactly is a "hardcore Irish republican mindset"? You mean people in Ireland who consider themselves to be Irish and dont buy into this ridiculous makey uppy "northern" Irish shite, which, more often than not, is really a Belfast identity just applied to the rest of the north by lazy and/or ignorant people.0 -
Willfarman wrote: »So in what year were the four provinces of ireland United apart from being United as part of the United Kingdom?
1800.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ireland0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »This is the main problem with the anti-shinners on Boards. They rail against things that they claim Sinn Fein say or do but in actual fact don't.
There's some clown on here keeps saying Sinn Fein are in favour of "shipping people out." Same sort of rubbish as this. I suppose I hate Peep Show, Motorhead and my girlfriend 'cause theyre all English?
Grow up.
Regarding Hannibal's post he actually makes a fair point. Look at the expressions of nationalism in the north (feiseanna, féilte, fleadh cheoils) then look at unionism; territory marking, burning flags, marching where they arent welcome etc...) Unionism has a serious identity crisis, only made worse by increased support for Scottish independence.
I know about your political stance and I expected nothing else than what you´ve written. You might know yourself as well that within and outside SF, there are different people with a different mindset and attitude. Some play the moderate cart, some the more radical. It´s all in there and one can find them among members and non-members of SF. What they have in common, by all their differences is a staunch Irish nationalism which is, imo, despite their claim to be "inclusive" rather "exclusive" because it demands to stand 100% behind Irishness as their expression of their own identiy. I think that such an "identiy attitude" is fairly exaggerated and in display shows as well some traces of chauvinism.
When it comes to "territory marking", the republicans and nationalists are no different from the unionists. It´s part of an old "Tradition" in NI and it won´t go away that soon, if ever.
There are some people who fall for the Shinners honey trap and there some who see right through them. I count myself to the latter. You can find such types of people and posters not just on boards.ie, they are posting in other places as well.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
I believe there was also a relatively brief period under Brian Boru and other High Kings (plus, y'know, the first dail and all that bothersome stuff) but all that stuff anyway is missing the point that the Irish nation is clearly one entity0 -
I know about your political stance and I expected nothing else than what you´ve written. You might know yourself as well that within and outside SF, there are different people with a different mindset and attitude. Some play the moderate cart, some the more radical. It´s all in there and one can find them among members and non-members of SF. What they have in common, by all their differences is a staunch Irish nationalism which is, imo, despite their claim to be "inclusive" rather "exclusive" because it demands to stand 100% behind Irishness as their expression of their own identiy. I think that such an "identiy attitude" is fairly exaggerated and in display shows as well some traces of chauvinism.
This is what I mean, how can you argue with someone who insists on projecting their own ignorance onto the party and rails against that. You clearly know nothign about Sinn Fein.When it comes to "territory marking", the republicans and nationalists are no different from the unionists. It´s part of an old "Tradition" in NI and it won´t go away that soon, if ever.
Wrong. Painting kerbstones, decking everything in flags, paramilitary flags and murals, all are far far far less common in nationalist areas than unionist ones. That's before we even get into the whole crazed, animalistic frenzy around bonfires.There are some people who fall for the Shinners honey trap and there some who see right through them. I count myself to the latter. You can find such types of people and posters not just on boards.ie, they are posting in other places as well.
Honey trap? Sinn Fein put their policies out there. You either agree with them or you dont. if you dont, grand, off you go elsewhere, that's how politics works, but this notion that youre somehow seeing through something is frankly, egotistical naval-gazing0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »This is what I mean, how can you argue with someone who insists on projecting their own ignorance onto the party and rails against that. You clearly know nothign about Sinn Fein.
The usual stereotypical reply from a Shinner when his party is questioned and seen in a different way from a different angle. To sum it up, your comment reads like the motto "one party, one voice and one opinion" anything else that is against it, means that one knows nothing about them.Wrong. Painting kerbstones, decking everything in flags, paramilitary flags and murals, all are far far far less common in nationalist areas than unionist ones. That's before we even get into the whole crazed, animalistic frenzy around bonfires.
Well, you might be reight regarding the kerstones, but the Republican Nationalists have their bonfire too, like the do have the other things you´ve mentioned, except "paramilitary flags" because the IRA always used the tricolour for their own display.Honey trap? Sinn Fein put their policies out there. You either agree with them or you dont. if you dont, grand, off you go elsewhere, that's how politics works, but this notion that youre somehow seeing through something is frankly, egotistical naval-gazing
Policies are always the pramework of a political party to express their political aims. It´s on paper and there it is, the way how such things can and would be realised is another thing. As well as it is another matter how people who are members of that party or just supporters act and express their opinions either as party members of sympathisers. In the whole Picture, they give some impression to the outsider on how he or she perceives them accordingly.
Where you live, SF is the big Nationalist Party and playes their role accordingly to keep their voters. In the Republic of Ireland, they act as the Socialist Party and alternative to Labour with a lesser degree of nationalistic overtones. In theory and in progaganda they always present themselves as being the "inclusive" Party for all People in Northern Ireland. In practice, "some of" their Cllrs can´t pass an occation to not either complain or interfere with marches of the Ulster Protestant Bands, going that far that despite a leading member of such a band calling on the doors of residents along the route to ask them of whether they have any objections and surprise surprise, None of them expressed even one when asked, the Cllr goes to the PC and declares that the band is not wanted to parade there because he declared the area as being of a close nationalist community.
That is the two-faced side of SF in theory and propaganda, and in praxis by their very representatives in constituencies. Hypcrites the lot of them. I judge them by their doing and not just by the pamphlets they distribute and the claims they make regarding being "inclusive" which in praxis they are proved of being lying because how can a party be that "inclusive" when she even can´t cope with a couple of bands marching on parade. There is more party political point scoring behind the scenes than they would ever admit.
As Long as SF and her followers can´t overcome their stupid and outdated anti-Britishness (where Gerry and Marty have no problem to hide that when meeting some member of the Royal Family), I don´t buy their false pretentions of being "inclusive" because they fail to be even tolerant towards their opponents, in political and cultural terms.0 -
The usual stereotypical reply from a Shinner when his party is questioned and seen in a different way from a different angle. To sum it up, your comment reads like the motto "one party, one voice and one opinion" anything else that is against it, means that one knows nothing about them.
How else am i to respond when you clearly know nothing about them? Im at a loss as to what to tell you. You keep hammering Sinn Fein for policies that are not theirs. Im left with no option but to inform you of your mistake.Well, you might be reight regarding the kerstones, but the Republican Nationalists have their bonfire too, like the do have the other things you´ve mentioned, except "paramilitary flags" because the IRA always used the tricolour for their own display.
Eh? No. A tiny, tiny handful of groups still light interment bonfires. The vast majority of nationalists/republicans do not. Internment commemorations are now marked, for example in Belfast, by Feile an Phobail, there is simply no comparison.
So, no kerbstones, no bonfires, no paramilitary flags. What were all your other great comparisons again?Policies are always the pramework of a political party to express their political aims. It´s on paper and there it is, the way how such things can and would be realised is another thing. As well as it is another matter how people who are members of that party or just supporters act and express their opinions either as party members of sympathisers. In the whole Picture, they give some impression to the outsider on how he or she perceives them accordingly.
I have literally no idea what youre waffling about hereWhere you live, SF is the big Nationalist Party and playes their role accordingly to keep their voters. In the Republic of Ireland, they act as the Socialist Party and alternative to Labour with a lesser degree of nationalistic overtones.
Where I live is Ireland, and in Ireland Sinn fein are, as of the last election, the most popular party. As an all Ireland party they are the same north and south. Page one line of their newry/armagh website, up in the north where theyre a totally different party according to you, for example puts their left credentials ahead of the "nationalistic" ones.Sinn Féin is a democratic, progressive, left wing political party committed to the creation of a united Ireland of Equals.In theory and in progaganda they always present themselves as being the "inclusive" Party for all People in Northern Ireland.
Eh? No. Again, this is what I mean, you clearly have no idea what Sinn Fein are about. Firstly, as I said, they are an all Ireland party and dont even use the phrase "northern Ireland."
Secondly, they are a republican party. they set out their policies and goals and those who agree with them vote for them. They do not try to be for "all people" any more than any other party does.
In practice, "some of" their Cllrs can´t pass an occation to not either complain or interfere with marches of the Ulster Protestant Bands, going that far that despite a leading member of such a band calling on the doors of residents along the route to ask them of whether they have any objections and surprise surprise, None of them expressed even one when asked, the Cllr goes to the PC and declares that the band is not wanted to parade there because he declared the area as being of a close nationalist community.
Again, no idea what your waffling about there but of the over 3000 loyalist parades held every year, about a dozen of them are really contentious. Maybe, just maybe Sinn Fein arent the problem in that particular scenario. Maybe loyalists could try taking a leaf out of Sinn Fein's book and willingly divert marches away from contentious areas.That is the two-faced side of SF in theory and propaganda, and in praxis by their very representatives in constituencies. Hypcrites the lot of them.
Firstly it's "some of" but now it's "hypcrites (sic) the lot of them".I judge them by their doing and not just by the pamphlets they distribute and the claims they make regarding being "inclusive" which in praxis they are proved of being lying because how can a party be that "inclusive" when she even can´t cope with a couple of bands marching on parade. There is more party political point scoring behind the scenes than they would ever admit.
This marching thing seems to be an issue for you, perhaps this will help.
http://www.thedetail.tv/articles/northern-ireland-s-culture-war-don-t-believe-the-hypeAs Long as SF and her followers can´t overcome their stupid and outdated anti-Britishness (where Gerry and Marty have no problem to hide that when meeting some member of the Royal Family),
So they cant over come their anti-britishness but Gerry and Marty, the main leaders, can overcome it to meet english royalty. Youre tying yourself in knots here. Tired of arguing with a version of Sinn Fein that only exists in your head you are now arguing with yourself.I don´t buy their false pretentions of being "inclusive" because they fail to be even tolerant towards their opponents, in political and cultural terms.
You do know what a political opponent is, dont you?
Culturally, as my links and your own statements on meeting with royalty have shown, youre talking gibberish.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »
What exactly is a "hardcore Irish republican mindset"? You mean people in Ireland who consider themselves to be Irish and dont buy into this ridiculous makey uppy "northern" Irish shite, which, more often than not, is really a Belfast identity just applied to the rest of the north by lazy and/or ignorant people.
If you want an example of the "hardcore Irish republican mindset", read this:Crooked Jack wrote: »
Look at the expressions of nationalism in the north (feiseanna, féilte, fleadh cheoils) then look at unionism; territory marking, burning flags, marching where they arent welcome etc...) Unionism has a serious identity crisis, only made worse by increased support for Scottish independence.
Oh....that was you.
In contrast, down South, we express our nationalism and Irish culture through the rugby, cricket and soccer teams, through U2, Christy Moore and Thin Lizzy, through outdoor festivals such as Slane, through Roddy Doyle, John Connolly and other modern Irish writers writing through the medium of English, through IMMA, through Fair City, through Hill16 and Croke Park in September, through "Ireland's Call", it is only a minority of our cultural nationalism that focuses on the past. Yes, we have those elements of Easter 1916, the Wolfe Tones, feiseanna, even the Irish language etc. but they are a very small part of what we are. We have grown culturally and nationally far beyond those limited perspectives. That is what makes us so different to Northern nationalists who are stuck in a dead vision of Ireland.0 -
If you want an example of the "hardcore Irish republican mindset", read this:
Oh....that was you.
In contrast, down South, we express our nationalism and Irish culture through the rugby, cricket and soccer teams, through U2, Christy Moore and Thin Lizzy, through outdoor festivals such as Slane, through Roddy Doyle, John Connolly and other modern Irish writers writing through the medium of English, through IMMA, through Fair City, through Hill16 and Croke Park in September, through "Ireland's Call", it is only a minority of our cultural nationalism that focuses on the past. Yes, we have those elements of Easter 1916, the Wolfe Tones, feiseanna, even the Irish language etc. but they are a very small part of what we are. We have grown culturally and nationally far beyond those limited perspectives. That is what makes us so different to Northern nationalists who are stuck in a dead vision of Ireland.
And that stuff doesnt apply to nationalism in the north?
http://www.feilebelfast.com/events/
http://www.feilebelfast.com/projects/
There's the Féile an Phobail website's calendar of events and projects. Have a look through that and tell me it's "stuck in a dead vision of Ireland."
Y'know I can take the anti-Republican bile spewed out here, that's just a different political opinion, albeit taken to TUV-like extreme.
What really gets me is the absolute ignorance of some people here regarding people in their own country. Hell, even if you dont think it's your own country it's only up the road. The blind assumptions based on chinese whispers passed down through generations, the bigoted dismissals, the refusal to listen or learn. You're a bigot and every bit the bigot the extremes of northern unionism are.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13695
Crooked Jack wrote: »You're a bigot and every bit the bigot the extremes of northern unionism are.
MOD: Please don't level personal abuse at other posters.0 -
Which "clown" would that be, out of interest? I'm not aware of anyone making any such statement about SF policy.Crooked Jack wrote: »There's some clown on here keeps saying Sinn Fein are in favour of "shipping people out."
In unrelated news, can someone direct me to the thread we can discuss these things vaguely civilly? Because we already have the Cafe's SF thread for the... other stuff.
Perhaps what you're thinking of is my comment on a post here, from an apparently pro-SF and/or Republican individual. And the deafening silence from any other pro-SF posters regarding such sentiments.
Republican as a movement, and SF as a party, might deserve to be taken seriously on inclusive, "outreachy", just, and equitable idea of unification when their attitude to such sentiments is that they have to be challenged. As opposed to, "great, another supporter of The Cause/vote in the bag".
And your selections from each community are of course in no way biased, of course. Neither is a monolith. There's no particular shortage of people from the C/N community that engage in territory marking, flag burning... and of course, deciding where other people are "not welcome".Look at the expressions of nationalism in the north (feiseanna, féilte, fleadh cheoils) then look at unionism; territory marking, burning flags, marching where they arent welcome etc...)0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Which "clown" would that be, out of interest? I'm not aware of anyone making any such statement about SF policy.
I don´t know of that particular poster either, but regarding the "shipping out" comment raised in the post of the poster you´ve quoted, it has a link to a comment made by Gerry Adams in public in the 1980s where he said that "if anybody from the Unionist community doesn´t like to live in a UI, there´s always the ferry to England". This extract from his speech is more often used by anti-SF Posters to Highlight the attitude that is still at the core of some People within SF. The more recent example for that is taken from Adams´ speech in Enniskillen in November last year when he addressed his audience at a SF "event" and answered a question from the midst of his members regarding the Unionists in NI and said that "we have to break those bigots by equality". Some quote Adams by even using the terms "bigot basterds" in context of that speech. This caused an outcry from the public because the press was there when he made that speech and in the end, he had to apologize also causing some "embarrassment" on McGuinness.
I take it that you know Crooked Jack for long enough on this site. I know him from the time when I´ve had my first account on this site and when I left this place and moved on to other places, I found the same characters like him in These other places too. Some of them were worse some were slightly moderate in compare to him. It´s always the same procedure from that pro-SF faction. Whatever Counter Argument one brings on, they find every way to either downplay things, deny it or simply Twist the truth of it in order to put SF in bright colours.
In all those years since I´ve been reading about SF, dealing with their self-admitted members, fellow travelers and supporters, the patterns of "defence" vary just on the individual approach of the poster to answers anti-SF Posts. In short, I´ve come to the conclusion and I´m convinced by that through my experiences, that SF cannot be trusted.
SF has on their own website their pamphlets with agendas that are similar to core poits of social democracy, like the Labour Party traditionally has. What really distincts the Shinners form the real social democrats is that staunch nationalism within SF, the leadership and their fellowship which is unique for a party that claims to be of left-wing tradition and faction. One can check every real left-wing Party, from Socialists to Social Democratic parties around the world. There is no real socialist Party that has so much nationalism in it than SF. Therefore I regard SF as being a pseudo-left-wing party with strong Nationalist overtones.
When one Looks at the international affiliations of SF, to check whether they are affiliated to the international socialist organisations, like the Socialist International, SF is not listed. Neither for the Republic of Ireland nor for Northern Ireland. Although the Socialist International has some categories of Membership (depending on paying their annual fees or not), a member Party of that Organisation is either a full member or an observing member. No category applies for SF because they have no membership in it. But the Irish Labour Party is there for Ireland and the SDLP is there for NI.
One can argue how important it might be for a left-wing Party to hold a Membership in international socialist organisations and what the benefit from such a memberhsip would be for the Party and their members. The Point is just, that socialist parties have a common cause and that is to make this planet a better and more just place for mankind. Therefore, Nationalist Sentiments are Alien to real socialists, yet in Ireland, North or South, those who call themselves socialists but are hangerson of SF seem to either have no problem with the Shinners nationalism or, and this is what I rather assume, simply ignore that and downplay it by putting the blame for it onto the Unionists.
I´ve had my debates with some of them Shinner friends and supporters regarding that staunch nationalism within SF. When I pointed out to them that the worst nationalists - which Shinners are rather quick to Label others as "fascists" - are to find within SF, they get outrageous. No rational debate on the matter can be conducted. Once you take a stance for the Unionist community simply on the ground of defending their democratic right to Keep their identity, their way of life and culture because this is what makes a real democracy and more to the Point a pluralistic one, they Label you as a Fascist because they see the Unionists as "Fascists".
Curious enough, I´ve never come across any Unionist and/or Loyalist who had the slightest interest in imposing a British identiy on Irish nationalists or even Irish People in NI who regard themselves as being Irish only and separate themselves from any form of Britishness. On the other Hand, SF fellas and those who officially deny being close to SF but hold a staunch Nationalist and Republican creed, they are very eager to impose their sense of Irishness on the Unionists.
This goes from everyday waffle about "you ought to give your allegiance to Ireland only" through always telling them that they are "Irish and not British", that the "British in Great Britain don´t recognise them as being as equal British like anybody from England, Scotland or Wales", that the British govt. has no interest in them and so far. The top of it is to delude themselves and deny the geo-political and administrative realities in present Northern Ireland. Even by addressing the area where they live, the delusion is always there. Like Crooked Jack just yesterday responded to me by "Where I live is Ireland". A reference normally being taken to the Island of Ireland and not the Irish State because South Armagh is still part of NI and thus part of the UK.
These are all old tricks and there´s nothing one can win and nothing one can lose either. It´s just like watching them running around in circles and looking at them the way they practice it in their hope that by ignoring the realities they will go away by the efforts of SF in their "greening of Northern Ireland" campaign that led to the flag issue in December 2012.
A Party with her member and Fellowship that can´t cope with the realities in a way to live and let live regarding their opponents, has no Moral high ground to stand upon. They maintain and propagate their anti-Britishness within their own circles. Unless they Change their attitude there, no real and genuine Change can be expected from SF. What they are doing at the present is just to play by the book and obey the rules of protocol when on the political stage Meeting with the hight representatives of the British State. That is all in order to path the way for a UI in which they hope they will Play the tune and I do not believe that their outset for a UI is based on acceptance and respect of the Unionist community and give them the same full rights every person can enjoy in the Republic of Ireland. I rather fear that for the Unionists, it would be a cold house for them unless they drop their Britishness and assimilate by what the Shinners understand and mean regarding "Irishness".
SF is still a Party that strives for the Establishment of a Socialist Republic in Ireland. At the core of it still lies the old attitude towards the Irish State that emerged from the Anglo-Irish-Treaty and became the present Republic of Ireland. Not less of their alleged followers deny the present Republic of Ireland her lawful right to exist and present the whole of the Irish People. That is more than just a political stance to me, it is the aim to replace this Irish State which is, by all in Irish history, the best although not perfect (but there isn´t any perfect state in this world at all) State the Irish ever had for themselves.
SF has yet to come clean with their past. Not just in relation to her role as being the political arm of the PIRA during the Troubles, but also further back their attitude to the way this Irish state was established. It all goes back to their grassroots and their historical reponsibility for the split within SF and the IRA culminating in the Irish Civil War. But I don´t expect them to do anything on that issues but to carry on the way they always did, representing themselves as the "alternative" for left-wing voters and for staunch nationalists who can´t do without their anti-Britishness.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Which "clown" would that be, out of interest? I'm not aware of anyone making any such statement about SF policy.
Id rather not get another warning but the utterly baseless accusation has been made many timesIn unrelated news, can someone direct me to the thread we can discuss these things vaguely civilly? Because we already have the Cafe's SF thread for the... other stuff.
Absolutely hilarious coming from one of the anti-SF Boards BrigadePerhaps what you're thinking of is my comment on a post here, from an apparently pro-SF and/or Republican individual. And the deafening silence from any other pro-SF posters regarding such sentiments.
Republican as a movement, and SF as a party, might deserve to be taken seriously on inclusive, "outreachy", just, and equitable idea of unification when their attitude to such sentiments is that they have to be challenged. As opposed to, "great, another supporter of The Cause/vote in the bag".
No idea what youre referring to in the first paragraph. Cant even read the second oneAnd your selections from each community are of course in no way biased, of course. Neither is a monolith. There's no particular shortage of people from the C/N community that engage in territory marking, flag burning... and of course, deciding where other people are "not welcome".
Fine, show me a major unionist event that isnt based on this sort of rubbish and is as inclusive as something like the Fleadh. I would actually be delighted if you could.
As for the other stuff, no, actually, Im not being biased. As i said this stuff is far far more prevalent in the unionist community (check out today's Irish News for the latest KKK and Confederate flags raised in unionist areas for the 12th). I'm sorry if that sounds biased but it's the truth.0 -
You're saying it would be uncivil to back this accusation up... but to repeat it, that's just fine?Crooked Jack wrote: »Id rather not get another warning but the utterly baseless accusation has been made many times
Regardless of your earlier impolitic language, I'd be most interested to see any actual basis for your assertion. As opposed to the the exchange that actually happened here, which I just described accurately, and you've ignored.
Well, that was helpful. I'll try to assume it just was a parting shot.Absolutely hilarious coming from one of the anti-SF Boards Brigade
Your lack of curiosity on both points is rather striking. Sure, why discuss what people actually say, when one can instead deal in vague deniables?No idea what youre referring to in the first paragraph. Cant even read the second one
How broadly are you defining "unionist event"? You were certainly construing "nationalist" ones pretty widely. I can see this immediately descending into an exercise where you assert a cultural event in the North isn't "Unionist" if it's notably inclusive or cross-community, and vice-versa. (Or in the UK generally, as you're not restricting "Northern Nationalist" to "Northern" -- or really to "Nationalist" as such at all.)Fine, show me a major unionist event that isnt based on this sort of rubbish and is as inclusive as something like the Fleadh.As for the other stuff, no, actually, Im not being biased. As i said this stuff is far far more prevalent in the unionist community (check out today's Irish News for the latest KKK and Confederate flags raised in unionist areas for the 12th). I'm sorry if that sounds biased but it's the truth.
It looks biased, it sounds biased, but don't let that fool you...
Even by this account, the difference is at most one of prevalence. As opposed to your earlier post, in which we have Irish dancing, they have flag burning, end of. But again, I fail to see how this addresses the underlying issues. It's much more the language of them'uns in their illegitimate statelet are irredeemable bigots, so by all means available, whether they like it or not.0 -
I wasn't aware of that. Then again, a whole lot of things happened in the '80s... Let's hope that Gerry's moved on in his thinking somewhat. Even if not all Republicans have.I don´t know of that particular poster either, but regarding the "shipping out" comment raised in the post of the poster you´ve quoted, it has a link to a comment made by Gerry Adams in public in the 1980s where he said that "if anybody from the Unionist community doesn´t like to live in a UI, there´s always the ferry to England".
Or perhaps vice versa. Or maybe they're making some sort of gradual transition. It may depend, in electoral terms, on how well they do making inroads into outflanking FF for the "Big Republican Party" vote, as against continuing to eat Labour's lunch.Therefore I regard SF as being a pseudo-left-wing party with strong Nationalist overtones.
Obviously, they'd ideally like FG and FF to merge, and Labour to disappear, so they could so both. Life's rarely so convenient, though.
NI isn't a normal society. Be a while before we get "normal" socialism there. (Might be a while before we get it anywhere on the island, actually.) I'd hardly say nationalism is "alien" to socialists. Or else I've never met a "real" socialist. It's considered the done thing to keep it done to a dull roar, though, and make some sort of nod to internationalism, and proposing equal treatment regardless of nationality. As opposed to the naked "[country's name here] first!" type stuff.Therefore, Nationalist Sentiments are Alien to real socialists, yet in Ireland, North or South, those who call themselves socialists but are hangerson of SF seem to either have no problem with the Shinners nationalism or, and this is what I rather assume, simply ignore that and downplay it by putting the blame for it onto the Unionists.
That's clearly a pretty general anxiety among them. And understandable, what with SF being the people "reaching out" to them with the sort of message they in practice actually send. But the realities of an actual UI would very probably be very, very different. (It's hard to say for sure... as it's not a reasonable foreseeable event.) Unless SF had a massive all-island majority, and unless their views and those of their voting base were entirely unreconstructed, forcible "Greening" does not seem a well-grounded fear.I rather fear that for the Unionists, it would be a cold house for them unless they drop their Britishness and assimilate by what the Shinners understand and mean regarding "Irishness".
Post GFA, SF's moved beyond this. The language hasn't quite caught up yet, though. I doubt even the people here insisting that NI is "not legitimate" would typically say that about the RoI -- not that they're happy with either its name, or its "official description".Not less of their alleged followers deny the present Republic of Ireland her lawful right to exist and present the whole of the Irish People.
You can't really "blame" present-day for that, even in a "lineage" sense. That's numerous Republican splits ago -- two of them major ones, that they were on the "small" end of at the time. FF would bear a larger share, if you want to go by that logic, and Labour some too.It all goes back to their grassroots and their historical reponsibility for the split within SF and the IRA culminating in the Irish Civil War.0 -
Advertisement
-
alaimacerc wrote: »I wasn't aware of that. Then again, a whole lot of things happened in the '80s... Let's hope that Gerry's moved on in his thinking somewhat. Even if not all Republicans have.
That´s the point. One earns what he spreeches and so did Paisley and so did Adams. Both of them have made some changes in their views over he years, but their legacy is a bit more harder to change.Or perhaps vice versa. Or maybe they're making some sort of gradual transition. It may depend, in electoral terms, on how well they do making inroads into outflanking FF for the "Big Republican Party" vote, as against continuing to eat Labour's lunch.
I judge SF in different ways depending on where they have more influence. In the Republic they are on the rise and I suspect more because they´re being used as a protest vote against the Establishment. In NI, they have managed to become "the" representative Party of all Irish Nationalists and Republicans (I´m here deliberatedly omitting the term "Catholic", even as that does apply as well). When in the decades before the Troubles and in the early years of it, the NILP later SDLP, was the voice of the CNRs in NI, and thus being a more moderate Party, the PIRA with relating SF to her as her "political arm", they managed to change that.
As for the fact that neither FF nor FG is present in NI, there is just onw "Big Republican Party" left and that is SF. That´s their big Advantage and in that area, NI, they are more likely to speak their mind than in the Republic, given that both leading figures of that party are originally from NI itself.Obviously, they'd ideally like FG and FF to merge, and Labour to disappear, so they could so both. Life's rarely so convenient, though.
I´m not sure whether this might be even possible, given the history of each of those parties. The one (FF) emerging from the anti-Treaty faction of the former (old) SF, the other (FG) emerging from the pro-Treaty faction and absorbing the Blue-Shirts in the 1930s.
I fear that, if Labour can´t win back voters and former members a adjusting their policies and thus by listening to the People, it might give the Shinners further Advantage in the Republic to gain more votes and establish herself as the left-wing alternative to the traditional Social Democratic Party which is Labour. But the Shinners can take as much as they like from Labour, they remain a Socialist Party with strong Nationalist overtones.
When you take a look at the list of the various Party factions in the EP, you see SF listed among other far-left and Communist parties and further EU-sceptic parties. I think that this speaks for itself because every Party can choose for her own to which "Club" they affiliate themselves with.NI isn't a normal society. Be a while before we get "normal" socialism there. (Might be a while before we get it anywhere on the island, actually.) I'd hardly say nationalism is "alien" to socialists. Or else I've never met a "real" socialist. It's considered the done thing to keep it done to a dull roar, though, and make some sort of nod to internationalism, and proposing equal treatment regardless of nationality. As opposed to the naked "[country's name here] first!" type stuff.
Well, I would say that you might be not that far from the truth when it Comes about individuals speaking for themselves and being a member of a traditional left-wing Party. Personal Sentiments Play a role in that too. I was referring to the official Party line and how her members and followers are acting in public, expressing their views accordingly. I don´t say that no Party member or follower has no right to disagree with policies of his Party, that´s normal and so it should be if one feels that the Party is not representing what he thinks would be the better alternative to some policy. I say that a party like SF, who claims and is perceived as being that "inclusive" to every people but to maintaines a sort of anti-Britishness which is more expressed by some of her members and followers than by her leading figures, it is like proving themselves being lying through their own teeth regarding "inclusiveness" but can´t get over this silly anti-British sentiments. As a result, they appear to being not genuine and therefore can´t be trusted on that one.That's clearly a pretty general anxiety among them. And understandable, what with SF being the people "reaching out" to them with the sort of message they in practice actually send. But the realities of an actual UI would very probably be very, very different. (It's hard to say for sure... as it's not a reasonable foreseeable event.) Unless SF had a massive all-island majority, and unless their views and those of their voting base were entirely unreconstructed, forcible "Greening" does not seem a well-grounded fear.
Many of the Unionists I´ve known on Internet Forums like this are naturally not very fond, less to day interested in this idea of a UI. Some of the moderate minded among them could maybe do with that but not if SF would be the Party that would take the leading role in this. That is out of question for them. There´s too much left of distrust from the past and SF´s link to the PIRA is still an issue for Unionists.Post GFA, SF's moved beyond this. The language hasn't quite caught up yet, though. I doubt even the people here insisting that NI is "not legitimate" would typically say that about the RoI -- not that they're happy with either its name, or its "official description".
I´d just recommend to read the Posts from some Irish Republican Nationalists, whether they are members or just followers of SF, some of them are more radical than them. It is all a matter of principle and principal. They refer to the Easter Proclamation as being the founding Stone for the Irish State. If that´s not doing the Job, they go further to the Setting of the 1st Dáil 1919. These two things are at the core of it and this is what they want. To establish a Socialist Republic on the grounds of the Easter Proclamation (where the word "Socialist" isn´t even written there), but that tells about the aim of them, to replace this present Republic of Ireland and of course, based on Irish unity which would demand to re-unification of the South with the North.
In due course of the GFA, the Republic of Ireland altered her constitution after the received aproval by the public in a Referendum. Since then, the claim of the Republic for the 6 counties that contain NI has been struck off from the constitution. That´s a thing most Republicans can´t get on with it. Therefore, the attitude to deny geo-political realities and refusing to refer to NI by that Name and instead using other terms like "O6C" etc.You can't really "blame" present-day for that, even in a "lineage" sense. That's numerous Republican splits ago -- two of them major ones, that they were on the "small" end of at the time. FF would bear a larger share, if you want to go by that logic, and Labour some too.
It´s not about putting the blame on present-day SF for her predecessor party organisation and the people who founded it. It is about reference to the past that lies at the grassroots of SF. That´s the point I´m on about.
This past is more dominant in NI than it is in the Republic of Ireland because it´s just about one question to be taken as an example for it. How often do you see commemoration marches of SF in the Republic of Ireland and how often do such things occure in NI? The legacy of the Troubles? Partly of course, but it´s not just some "Display" of the troubles when they are on marching, it´s dating back to the times of the Irish War of Independence, when the IRA was "glorious" in fighting the British.
The Shinners are very eager in their efforts of PR on their own website. They also have their own YouTube channel on the internet and one can see the videos from such marches there, whithout standing alongside the road watching them passing by.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I wasn't aware of that. Then again, a whole lot of things happened in the '80s... Let's hope that Gerry's moved on in his thinking somewhat. Even if not all Republicans have.
And of course you would swallow that without requesting any proof to back up that such a thing was ever said.0 -
Silly me, where would we be without the ever-moving burden of proof.Crooked Jack wrote: »And of course you would swallow that without requesting any proof to back up that such a thing was ever said.
OK, Thomas: was this actually said, and if so, what's the precise quote, date, and occasion.
Jack: are you actually saying this wasn't said, or just making a shot-in-the-dark point about my supposed bias and credulity?0 -
Sure, that's the underlying reason. That plus the massive incentive of the parties to much so much as admit the possibility of coalition with each other would be electorally self-defeating.I´m not sure whether this might be even possible, given the history of each of those parties. The one (FF) emerging from the anti-Treaty faction of the former (old) SF, the other (FG) emerging from the pro-Treaty faction and absorbing the Blue-Shirts in the 1930s.
Eventually, though, it'll have to change. You can't just dine out on the CW forever. Either they'll realign on some big, as yet unforeseen, issue in the future. Or they'll continue to become less and less dominant. Once the only way they can foreseeably get into government is with each other, they'll change their tune.
Not necessarily: look at Democratic Left. FG may still get "Blueshirts" thrown regularly at them at on these forums, but no-one with any sense thinks they have the "indelible character" of a fascist party just because they'd some rum characters resting in their ranks 80 years ago.But the Shinners can take as much as they like from Labour, they remain a Socialist Party with strong Nationalist overtones.
Subject to being let in by the others, IIRC. But there's strong incentives to belong to an EP group, and some fairly constraining rules about minimum numbers of MEPs and numbers of countries required to form one. Not a lot of potential for a "economically left, socially not quite sure, irredentist nationalist" grouping.When you take a look at the list of the various Party factions in the EP, you see SF listed among other far-left and Communist parties and further EU-sceptic parties. I think that this speaks for itself because every Party can choose for her own to which "Club" they affiliate themselves with.
So it makes for some very strange bedfellows.
But the "core" of the FF vote would say just the same. (If they have a core as such these days.)I´d just recommend to read the Posts from some Irish Republican Nationalists, whether they are members or just followers of SF, some of them are more radical than them. It is all a matter of principle and principal. They refer to the Easter Proclamation as being the founding Stone for the Irish State. If that´s not doing the Job, they go further to the Setting of the 1st Dáil 1919.
#Since then, the claim of the Republic for the 6 counties that contain NI has been struck off from the constitution. That´s a thing most Republicans can´t get on with it. Therefore, the attitude to deny geo-political realities and refusing to refer to NI by that Name and instead using other terms like "O6C" etc.
And "not legitimate", etc. As I said, they're signed up to it, and eventually the feet will surely catch up with the brain. One can only maintain that level of cognitive dissonance for so long. I hope.
I don't think this stands up to examination or observation, as I said before. Their association with that isn't unique... or even primary, or essential.Partly of course, but it´s not just some "Display" of the troubles when they are on marching, it´s dating back to the times of the Irish War of Independence, when the IRA was "glorious" in fighting the British.0 -
This was a loaded proposal to try to force unionists into a minority in Ulster.Irish Rationalist wrote: »When a majority eventually do vote for reunification in a referendum, a united Ireland shall probably initially take the form of a federal all-Ireland republic, with power being devolved from Dublin and Belfast to the four provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Dáithí Ó Conaill developed the concept of Eire Nua back in the 70s.
As to who would set up Connacht as a regional government, I don't know. Dublin, Antrim, Down and Cork each have larger populations, with each side of Dublin having a larger population.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement