Border Poll discussion

ancapailldorcha

Serious discussion only please. Posts deleted.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Keep the PSNI as a regional police force and let them deal with unionist paramilitaries/drug dealers as they currently do.

Unless there is a huge alliance somewhere with an outside power Loyalist violence will be localised. They have never been able to mount a destabilising campaign without help or collusion.
This time around there would be no benefit to Britain in colluding with them, quite the contrary.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unless there is a huge alliance somewhere with an outside power Loyalist violence will be localised. They have never been able to mount a destabilising campaign without help or collusion.
This time around there would be no benefit to Britain in colluding with them, quite the contrary.

As you have pointed out,the loyalist terrorists aren't particularly well organised so would possibly be relatively easy to quash.On the other hand,this does raise the question how will the more organised republican terrorists react in the event of a UI if their drug and extortion operations are threatened?

Junkyard Tom

RobMc59 wrote: »

how will the more organised republican terrorists react in the event of a UI if their drug and extortion operations are threatened?

Not sure how a UI would make it worse - the opposite I would have thought.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

As you have pointed out,the loyalist terrorists aren't particularly well organised so would possibly be relatively easy to quash.On the other hand,this does raise the question how will the more organised republican terrorists react in the event of a UI if their drug and extortion operations are threatened?

If there are republican 'terrorists' operating then they are dissidents who will be even more marginalised if there is a UI. I wouldn't see much of a threat there to be honest.

McMurphy

RobMc59 wrote: »

As you have pointed out,the loyalist terrorists aren't particularly well organised so would possibly be relatively easy to quash.On the other hand,this does raise the question how will the more organised republican terrorists react in the event of a UI if their drug and extortion operations are threatened?

Why would republican terrorists need to exist an an already United island of Ireland anyway

Annd9

RobMc59 wrote: »

As you have pointed out,the loyalist terrorists aren't particularly well organised so would possibly be relatively easy to quash.On the other hand,this does raise the question how will the more organised republican terrorists react in the event of a UI if their drug and extortion operations are threatened?

It is already under threat without a UI and I don't see a campaign against the gangs pushing them out . Republican group's do not have to the same respect that they used to , high profile murders in recent years prove that .

RobMc59

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why would republican terrorists need to exist an an already United island of Ireland anyway

You assume they are all brave freedom fighters(that applies to both sides)-there are bad apples in every barrel-will they all be willing to renounce a life of criminality and extortion to live normal lives?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You assume they are all brave freedom fighters(that applies to both sides)-there are bad apples in every barrel-will they all be willing to renounce a life of criminality and extortion to live normal lives?

If they are criminals now, they will still be after unity. Unity isn't going to create a nation of all good people, sadly.

McMurphy

RobMc59 wrote: »

You assume they are all brave freedom fighters(that applies to both sides)-there are bad apples in every barrel-will they all be willing to renounce a life of criminality and extortion to live normal lives?

I don't assume anything, dissidents operating for their claim of a United Ireland should by default cease to exist if or when that happens.

Those that are partaking in drugs or extortion will probably continue to do so, as Francie above me has already stated Irish unity won't mean criminals will suddenly cease being criminals, and in that sense the whole point of your post has sailed over my head tbh.

RobMc59

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't assume anything, dissidents operating for their claim of a United Ireland should by default cease to exist if or when that happens.

Those that are partaking in drugs or extortion will probably continue to do so, as Francie above me has already stated Irish unity won't mean criminals will suddenly cease being criminals, and in that sense the whole point of your post has sailed over my head tbh.

Some may say perhaps there are people with their head firmly planted in the sand so things will sail over their heads-you or francie don't strike me as that and as you say,criminals will continue doing what they do best to the detriment of the public.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Some may say perhaps there are people with their head firmly planted in the sand so things will sail over their heads-you or francie don't strike me as that and as you say,criminals will continue doing what they do best to the detriment of the public.

So what has that got to do with a United Ireland then?

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So what has that got to do with a United Ireland then?

You appear to have forgotten your reply to a question about dealing with the UVF in the event of a UI-I`m sure this was an oversight on your part and you abhor all criminal terrorists as we all do,whether we are Irish,British or whatever.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

2018 banner and not a word about it. Are you being led by media generated outrage .....again? :rolleyes:

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What's strange or surprising about it? It seems perfectly aligned with SF's raison d'etre.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is it true Sinn Fein want the English out of Ireland? Well I never...
This is the biggest load of nonsense over absolutely nothing.

The disgusting thing I saw regarding this was Coveney shamefully using this as an opportunity to score points by working in a comparison to the NZ leader re leadership. The man has no shame. Gutter Fine Gael 'politics'.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why is it an issue now when it wasn't last year?

Is this on behalf of Unionist sensitivities?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well forgive me for thinking it is just more of the 'get Gerry' stuff as the outrage is coming from the same quarters.

.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nationalist party leader who's remit is a united Ireland marches with regularly used flag regarding getting the English out of Ireland, so what?

We've enough serious issues to be talking about, but I suppose that's the point.

jm08 wrote: »

I have a lot of time for Simon Coveney, but he was wrong in this instance for using this situation to have a pop at Mary Lou.

What was she to do? Refuse to walk behind it and offend her hosts? If that is the case, Leo should have refused to be in the same parade as McGregor who is far more embarrassing for the Irish nation than any banner produced by an American-Irish organisation.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've a very bizarre take on this.
One is a leader of a party whose main goal is ushering in a United Ireland and having any form of English/British authority removed. Marching on St. Patrick's Day, behind a flag saying as much. I don't see the political shock and awe value others do obviously.

Coveney was way out of order using the killings to score a point on SF IMO. It was gutter politics. 'Clumsy' is a cop out on your behalf TBF.

Jesus, lads, you called that one very wrong.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sfs-mary-lou-mcdonald-apologises-for-posing-with-england-get-out-of-ireland-banner-37972274.html


"I apologise to anybody who felt that the banner was intended in that way and I'm happy to clarify that it's not. It certainly doesn't mean that."

Well, I for one am happy to accept Mary Lou's apology and hope that she has learned her lesson. I think the poll result at the weekend helped with her learning.

Far from "gutter politics" from Coveney, the sentiment in the banner came from the gutter, as Mary-Lou belatedly recognised.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Jesus, lads, you called that one very wrong.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sfs-mary-lou-mcdonald-apologises-for-posing-with-england-get-out-of-ireland-banner-37972274.html


"I apologise to anybody who felt that the banner was intended in that way and I'm happy to clarify that it's not. It certainly doesn't mean that."

Well, I for one am happy to accept Mary Lou's apology and hope that she has learned her lesson. I think the poll result at the weekend helped with her learning.

Far from "gutter politics" from Coveney, the sentiment in the banner came from the gutter, as Mary-Lou belatedly recognised.

Typical Indo selective journalism.

I actually heard the interview with P. Boucher Hayes and he asked her explicitly was she moving towards an an apology for posing with the banner.

She said No,what she wanted to do was spell out (what anyone with sense should know) that the banner was not directed at English 'people', but an English influenced parliament.

Exactly what was said here earlier.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Jesus, lads, you called that one very wrong.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sfs-mary-lou-mcdonald-apologises-for-posing-with-england-get-out-of-ireland-banner-37972274.html


"I apologise to anybody who felt that the banner was intended in that way and I'm happy to clarify that it's not. It certainly doesn't mean that."

Well, I for one am happy to accept Mary Lou's apology and hope that she has learned her lesson. I think the poll result at the weekend helped with her learning.

Far from "gutter politics" from Coveney, the sentiment in the banner came from the gutter, as Mary-Lou belatedly recognised.

I think you might need to either reread what she said, and what she was apologising about, or else stop blatantly trying to misrepresent what she said, along with your selective quotation.

Firstly , you yourself tried to imply that the banner was aimed at people from England when you said the banner said "English out of Ireland"

On the issue of the banner she moved to clarify the meaning behind it and apologised to people who felt its message was directed at English people.

England (as in the British government) is not English people.

In respect of St Patrick's Day I think it starts certainly a conversation around that banner which has been up and down Fifth Avenue for a generation," she said.

"It's a very direct political statement, it's an anti-partition statement.

You also seem to have missed this fairly pertinent bit of text from that article.

"In fact far from apologising for it I wear that political position as a badge of honour."

Talk about rewriting an article to twist the facts .....

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I think you might need to either reread what she said, and what she was apologising about, or else stop blatantly trying to misrepresent what she said, along with your selective quotation.

Firstly , you yourself tried to imply that the banner was aimed at people from England when you said the banner said "English out of Ireland"



England (as in the British government) is not English people.



You also seem to have missed this fairly pertinent bit of text from that article.



Talk about rewriting an article to twist the facts .....

I have gracefully accepted her apology. By apologising "to people who felt its message was directed at English people" as I did, she has accepted the legitimacy of my reading of the banner. The rest of her statement is a bit along the lines of "I didn't mean to be racist", but hey I'll let that go tonight.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I have gracefully accepted her apology. By apologising "to people who felt its message was directed at English people" as I did, she has accepted the legitimacy of my reading of the banner. The rest of her statement is a bit along the lines of "I didn't mean to be racist", but hey I'll let that go tonight.

Everyone is happy then. Those who jumped on a bandwagon of outrage and SF, - now that the point of the banner is understood, it seems.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everyone is happy then. Those who jumped on a bandwagon of outrage and SF, - now that the point of the banner is understood, it seems.

I don't think we will see Mary Lou behind a banner like that again, so yes, the lesson is learned, and we are all happy.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I have gracefully accepted her apology. By apologising "to people who felt its message was directed at English people" as I did, she has accepted the legitimacy of my reading of the banner. The rest of her statement is a bit along the lines of "I didn't mean to be racist", but hey I'll let that go tonight.

Why did you think it was directed at English people when you seen the photos of her with the banner, and clearly could see that it had the word "England" on it.

Yet you misrepresented that and tried to claim that it actually said "English" in your earlier post.

I think her apology was along the same vein as me saying that I am sorry that you appear to have trouble comprehensively reading what is written in front of you.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think we will see Mary Lou behind a banner like that again, so yes, the lesson is learned, and we are all happy.

Doubt that very much.

In fact far from apologising for it I wear that political position as a badge of honour.

RobMc59

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why did you think it was directed at English people when you seen the photos of her with the banner, and clearly could see that it had the word "England" on it.

Yet you misrepresented that and tried to claim that it actually said "English" in your earlier post.

I think her apology was along the same vein as me saying that I am sorry that you appear to have trouble comprehensively reading what is written in front of you.

Johnny you know that saying England out means the English and so does she-there is a difference-if it was said that as it was an American banner and they probably don't know the difference between England and Britain that would be plausible.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I think her apology was along the same vein as me saying that I am sorry that you appear to have trouble comprehensively reading what is written in front of you.

Really?

So Mary Lou thinks that anyone who took offence was stupid or thick, I don't think so.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Really?

So Mary Lou thinks that anyone who took offence was stupid or thick, I don't think so.

Are you inventing insult again? Where does it say that? She apologised to anyone who misunderstood it and consequently took offence. (and to those who had deficient eyesight and read 'English' and not 'England' presumably)

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Really?

So Mary Lou thinks that anyone who took offence was stupid or thick, I don't think so.

I didn't say anyone was stupid or thick, I said some people seemed to either purposely misrepresent what was written on the banner, or perhaps they had reading comprehension issues.

Your misinterpretation of my own post says it all tbh.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

Johnny you know that saying England out means the English and so does she-there is a difference-if it was said that as it was an American banner and they probably don't know the difference between England and Britain that would be plausible.

It means English/British rule. You may be familiar with Brits out'? School children know this. This is an exercise is faux outrage. The one who should apologise is Coveney for using the killings in NZ to score points on this non issue. Disgusting.

RobMc59

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It means English/British rule. You may be familiar with Brits out'? School children know this. This is an exercise is faux outrage. The one who should apologise is Coveney for using the killings in NZ to score points on this non issue. Disgusting.

In school in England I wasn't taught Brits out.If the banner said Scotland or Wales out of Ireland would we be expected to understand this means Britain out of Ireland?
I was under the impression it was the US who mistakenly think England means the whole of Britain.I'm surprised Irish posters here seem unaware of the fact England is only one part of the UK.

BonnieSituation

Is this thread now the "I'm offended for no good reason" thread?

McMurphy

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is this thread now the "I'm offended for no good reason" thread?

It's worse than that Bonnie, some of them even try to rewrite the slogan on the banner (despite the photo) and claim offence at something that was never there.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

In school in England I wasn't taught Brits out.If the banner said Scotland or Wales out of Ireland would we be expected to understand this means Britain out of Ireland?
I was under the impression it was the US who mistakenly think England means the whole of Britain.I'm surprised Irish posters here seem unaware of the fact England is only one part of the UK.

Well as you aren't familiar with the terminology used for many decades I understand your confusion. Suffice to say your idea that theres some form of outrage to be had is mistaken.

If the cream of the conservative party seem to know little about NI it's not surprising some others in the English education system aren't aware of issues concerning NI.